A not so new subject is coming up in the Military circles:  Gays openly serving in the US armed forces.  Here’s my take.

Bill Clinton was the notorious President who instated the “Don’t ask, don’t tell”  on gays serving in the military by executive order in 1993:

Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.

Prior to this, the military had a complete ban non-heterosexual people serving in the armed forces.  The rational is essentially that it is detrimental to the “good order and discipline essential to the good working order of the armed forces.”

Current opinions based on my observations:

Largely it has been my experience that homosexuals do serve currently, and serve honorable not to the detriment of unit cohesion.  The only barrier to unit cohesion that exists is when people are closed minded and object to them serving.

Homosexuality has been a largely decisive issue.  The reasons are vast.  Some people don’t believe that homosexuality is natural.  I’m not here to argue it, however thousands of years of history across a great many cultures have experienced homosexual issues, either choosing to ignore it, or oppress it.  Others believe its against God’s laws.  There are numerous biblical passages both Old and New Testament that are interpreted to be anti-homosexual.  Therefore regardless of their motives, they believe in their set of values that homosexuality is wrong.  Now the ways in which they handle it are different.

Some people are inherently violent and intolerant in their views.  These are the people who are a detriment to unit cohesion.  The sexual orientation of service members has rarely (i can’t speak for a fact, but that i am aware of it hasn’t) been an issue as far as homosexuals assaulting members or otherwise being a problem.  Homosexuals are generally in fear of intolerance and know that their orientation is taboo, and therefore don’t want to attract the attention.

We all know people who are gay in the military.  I haven’t seen any issues arise in my years of service from gays being in the Army.  I personally just choose to recognize someone as a soldier and not by their orientation, color, culture, or creed.

Personally i don’t have any issue with gays serving.  I don’t think they should advertise it, just they same way i don’t go around telling everyone i like chicks.  Just let them serve, do their job, and keep an eye out for anyone who would discriminate based on orientation, either straights oppressing gays or visa versa.

So there ya go, who cares?  The ones who make the biggest issues of gays serving are the ones who can’t find a compromise.  The compromise is just letting them join and not taking any actions against people who are gay.

Like Chris Rock said (i’m paraphrasing) “Anyone who is willing to go fight in army and defend our freedoms…good for them.  i’m sure as hell not going to do it”

The second amendment means different things to different people, but a fundamental understanding of why the framers included it in the form it was is imperative.

One major sticking point for gun grabbers and civil right preservers is the “prefatory clause” in the amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun grabbers argue that the above italicized text means that this only applies to a militia, such as the national guard.  The issue being that the definition of militia in the 18th century meant “the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service” which simple means, that all men who could carry a weapon that could be called to military service.

Next is the “operative clause”:

being necessary to the security of a free State

Gun grabbers again would like to declare this means that not only is the militia the only people who should be allowed to have guns, but they are to be only used for the security of a free state.  They typically take the modern interpretation of a “Free State” as that being keeping our country safe from foreign enemies.

When the Framers drafted the bill of rights, they were still fearful of standing armies as their experiences in Europe had shown.  The people didn’t trust standing armies because they were typically the used by the governments of Europe to oppress their people.  European history is riddled with numerous examples monarchs using their militaries to oppress popular uprisings.

The language in the bill of rights is to ensure that the citizens of America, unlike their cousins in Europe could maintain arms in their homes to defend themselves from a standing army.  The congress realized that they needed to have a standing army to defend the fledgling state foreign powers (as exemplified by the war of 1812, when Britain re invaded America).  The argument was over whether it was OK for the Army to be controlled by the federal government or by the states.  Remember there was a lot of fear of federally owned militaries oppressing the people.

The bottom line is that the Framers wanted the citizenry to be armed to protect the liberties that they wanted us to have from a potential oppressive federal government.  We are to have arms to protect our rights.  Surely a vast majority of us gun owners will take up our arms to not only protect our right to keep our arms, but for everyone’s right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to peaceably assemble, and every other right guaranteed to us by the Constitution.

Gun grabbers don’t typically take issue with the rest of the Amendment, as it’s hardly possible to argue the meaning of “..to keep and bear arms…” and “…shall not be infringed.”  They are pretty definite, regardless of the time the words are used.

You destroy one right, it opens doors to destroying others.  Sadly most of the liberal body doesnt seem to think more than a week in the future.  It might not be the first year after, the first decade…but surely down the line more liberties will be destroyed once that door is open.  It is unequivocally the “Pandora’s Box” of law.