Who Should We Let Be Free?(Long)

Status
Not open for further replies.

fjolnirsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
1,746
Location
Oregon, in the Willamette Valley
I happened across this today...

blog

WHO SHOULD WE LET BE FREE?

Donald Rumsfeld pinned it on himself.

When Charles Cooper got his first Purple Heart, after the explosion went off and the shrapnel peppered him, it was personally presented by the secretary of defense.

It was one of those flukes.

Rumsfeld was in theater, Private Cooper was up for the medal, and it made a pretty good picture to send home to the folks.

That was about a month ago.

Which was about 10 months after his senior prom.

Charles Cooper graduated from Jamestown High School last June. Jamestown is where Lucille Ball was from, a pretty little city on the shores of Chautauqua Lake in Western New York. But he graduated and went in the Army and they stationed him at Fort Drum.

Which is pretty good.

Because if you’re in the Army and you’re from New York there aren’t that many places you can be stationed that aren’t a long ways from home.

But Fort Drum is just up past Rochester and Syracuse by Watertown, a good long drive, but still in New York. Though when orders came for Iraq it didn’t make much difference anymore and Charles Cooper, the youngest of six, shipped out.

That was around the holidays.

And then he got wounded.

And maybe it got him thinking or something because last week he got to a phone in Baghdad and called home to talk to his girlfriend.

Her name is Ashley.

And long distance from the war he asked her to marry him.

That’s the kind of thing you talk about to your grandchildren. You pull them up on grampa’s knee and tell them how, when you were in the war in Iraq, you asked their grandmother to be your bride. It’s a sweet, all-American kind of thing. The kind of thing that love is all about.

And that’s what Charles Cooper did.

Which is pretty good for a 19-year-old.

And this would be a pretty good story if it ended here. But it doesn’t.

It ended a week ago, when Charles Cooper got his second Purple Heart. A week ago today. They were out on patrol and there was another explosion and it killed him. It killed Private Cooper and a friend of his, a kid from Indiana who was supposed to go home next week. His name was Darren Deblanc. He was 20 and a private first class.

And they’re both dead.

Darren’s mom can cancel the welcome-home party and Ashley can try to forget her dreams of a life with Charles.

They are two more men who gave their lives for freedom.

A freedom which, ironically, neither of them were able to fully enjoy.

See, all this talk about freedom and liberty isn’t a hypothetical. It’s not theory. It’s reality. And when it comes to freedom, you either have it or you don’t. And the sad fact is that these two men – these two young men – were denied by their home states some of the freedoms you’d expect Americans to enjoy.

Namely, the right to be an adult.

Let’s talk about New York, Charles Cooper’s home.

As a 19-year-old, Charles Cooper could not apply for a permit to own or carry a handgun.

Period.

It didn’t matter that he was a soldier, that he was a decorated combat veteran, that he was fighting for his country and its security.

Back home in Jamestown, or up at Watertown, the state of New York said that until he turned 21 he wasn’t responsible enough to own a handgun of any sort.

He could carry one into combat, but he couldn’t have one at home.

Neither could he have a beer.

Like every state, New York forbids the sale of alcohol to anyone under 21. It’s meant to protect younger people who are presumably not responsible enough to have a drink.

That is a decision the state must feel they are too immature to make.

You can decide to go in the Army. You can sign a contract. You can vote and owe debts. You can ask your girl to marry you.

And you can die for your country.

But you can’t buy a can of beer.

Which isn’t right.

As has been said a million times: If you’re old enough to fight for your country, you’re old enough to enjoy its liberties. And to deny to a man or woman old enough to fight and wear the uniform of our country the full privileges of adulthood is a violation of their civil rights.

If you denied a right due to race, color, religion, sexual orientation or old age, you’d have people shouting discrimination all day long. But you deny a whole class of people the simple rights of adulthood because they’re 18, 19 or 20 and everybody thinks you’re doing them a favor.

Well, you’re not. You’re oppressing them.

The sacrifice of these two young men, and of hundreds of others under 21, should bring to those like them the full freedoms of this society.

It’s time to let people be free, it’s time to get the government off their backs, it’s time to let people live their own lives.

Isn’t that what we say about Iraq?

Isn’t that what Charles Cooper fought for?

Shouldn’t that be true in America?

Even if you’re 18, 19 or 20?

If you're old enough to fight for freedom, you're old enough to have freedom.


- by Bob Lonsberry © 2005

comments?
 
Last edited:
Amen. My son comes home for a two week leave next weekend from Iraq. Paul has been in the Army for nearly 2 years, has earned a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal, but I can't take him to a bar and buy him a beer.

Paul won't be 21 until August of next year. He will be a married veteran before he can sip a simple alchoholic beverage.

In other wars, returning veterans were treated worse-I'm sure there are still some minority veterans from WWII and Korea around to speak of despicable things they had to go through. It does NOT justify the action, especially when I hear people talk about how far we have come.
 
I'm suprised that no one can/has challenged these 21-age limits based on Equal Rights. I've had 18 yr-olds I'd trust watching my back with a pistol, and 21 yr-olds I wouldn't trust with a flashlight. Most people I know don't mature much between 18 and 21.
 
Which is why I quietly laugh and shake my head when people say they don't discriminate based on age. :(

A couple of years ago, I was with some friends celebrating a 21st birthday (not mine). We were all under 21 (except the guest of honor), quite inebriated, but having a good time and generally behaving ourselves. A 46-year-old "man" who was renting the land we were on came out and joined us. However, after a mere 1/2 bottle of rye whiskey, that "man" soon became the most immature, violent, and ugly little brat I have ever seen. Imagine six 18-19 year olds resignedly restraining a fully grown adult who was threatening to kill us all. Great way to ruin a day of shooting, barbecue, and drinking around a bonfire.

I have quoted it before, and I will quote it again.

"It ain't the years, honey. It's the mileage."
-Indiana Jones, Raiders of the Lost Ark
 
As has been said a million times: If you’re old enough to fight for your country, you’re old enough to enjoy its liberties. And to deny to a man or woman old enough to fight and wear the uniform of our country the full privileges of adulthood is a violation of their civil rights.

Speaking strictly as an old guy: amen!
 
So, what would it take to get this corrected? IIRC, the drinking age thing is tied up with federal funding for ???Roads??? Is that right? It'd be a long, hard fight, but with the war and pro soldier sentiment, I would think we'd have a good angle for it.
Sad, isn't it? That we'd need an "angle" to get soldiers(or anyone) their civil rights.
Anyhow, ideas?
 
When I was in the service years ago, I went into a waterfront bar who had a simple rule - old enough for the service, old enough for service. The cops came through once a year, and never harrased anyone. In respect, we kept in quiet and friendly, (considering we were all 18-20 year old sailors, that is amazing in itself!), and all was good. I certainly wouldn't feel bad about an 18 year old soldier having a beer. Heck we were ISSUED them at sea! Have you local congree person sqare Beer Day away with thier 21 law....no one checked IDs by Hold 5 those two days....
 
I absolutely agree. I would present this as "Veteran's exemption". Simply put, a veteran is exempt from age restriction until age 21. "Old enough for the service, old enough for service" is an excellent way of putting the respect up front, where it belongs. A veteran is an adult, morally and philosophically.
Josh
 
When putting this idea forward, just put the gun control thing aside, or leave it in the shadows of things like alcohaulic beverages and the like. Although I myself agree with the bit about gun control exemptions, it makes most liberals like myself nervous to see ANYONE with guns (it really does make us uncomfortable, and no, Freud, it doesn't mean we're sexually retarded.) A veteran not old enough to buy a beer, deemed responsible enough to carry the free world on his shoulders, but not responsible drink, that's bloody ridiculous. To tell someone that they're fighting for all that is well and good in the world, and then to subject them to this red tape garbage is one of those oversights that bugs the bejebus out of me.
 
So basically, Bob Lonsberry is arguing that anyone recognized as an adult, age 18, should have all of the perques that adults 21 and over have. The weight of the argument is that since an 18 year old can join the military and defend our country, then 18 year olds should have full rights.

The whole story about the dead soldiers is a type of argument construction that is an argument fallacy called an appeal to emotion. The purpose of an appeal to emotion is generate emotional responses so as to sway people that the argument maker is trying to convince. The fallacy aspect is that the emotional aspects don't actually have anything to do with the actual argument. Such appeals are often used when the argument maker doesn't have enough facts or a well enough developed proper argument to be successful.

Sure, these soldiers died as have many others. Their deaths have nothing to do with the argument that full rights should be given to folks who are 18. The notation that full rights should be given to folks when they turn 18 because they can join the military is another matter. I do agree, but there is an ironic facet. For folks joining the military at 18, the argument is moot. In the military, military folks do not have rights anything like what private citizens have.

What about being old enough to apply for a gun permit. Also moot as the military probably isn't going to allow it and there is no evidence to suggest that the soldiers wanted such permits before they went in the military.
 
it makes most liberals like myself nervous to see ANYONE with guns

Sorry, but the issue of rights includes firearms - wether it makes you nervous of not there have been a lot of pre-21 year olds that have died in battle to preserve your freedoms. They have fought & died using firearms that some would not allow them to have here.

What would you have them use to defend your freedom ?

This reminds me of how I felt in 1966 when facing the draft and the assurance of where I would serve. I couldn't figure out how I could be treated like a child at 18 and then at 18 & 1/2 be responsable for defending this country who as stated previously, would deny me my full adult rights.

Guns may make you nervous , but they have kept you free . In the hands of some young and mighty couragous people who sacraficed all to make it happen for you.
 
All I have to say is that the 21-to-drink laws are simply retarded. I was able to get alcohol when I was 16. I was also able to get some not so nice substances at that age. I built a still at age 19. (Parents found out, don't have it anymore.) Look at Europe. In many places it is legal to drink at 16. Yet where are the mass graves of teens dying over there. :banghead:
 
mnrivrat: Sorry, but the issue of rights includes firearms - whether it makes you nervous or not there have been a lot of pre-21 year olds that have died in battle to preserve your freedoms. They have fought & died using firearms that some would not allow them to have here.
Um. Some? :scrutiny:

Not quite on-topic, but how many SBR/full-auto weapons do our combined military branches have? How many DDs? That were made after 1986?

Sorry... bad day
 
it makes most liberals like myself nervous to see ANYONE with guns (it really does make us uncomfortable, and no, Freud, it doesn't mean we're sexually retarded.)
That is your problem. Entirely. Your hoplophobia, your irrational fears, are YOUR problem, and for you to resolve. They are NOT valid reasons for you to inflict damages on the rights of others. Part of the severe societal problems that we see today are just this,-- that people expect to restrict and damage the rights of the rest of society purely on the basis of their own sillyninnyness, ignorance, and phobias.

Meanwhile, to the original point:
If we are not going to concider a person 18 years old an adult in our society, then we shouldn't send our children off to fight and die for our causes.
I agree, except that I prefer extending full citizenship and rights to those old enough to serve in the military rather than raise the age at which they may serve.
 
Last edited:
Not quite on-topic, but how many SBR/full-auto weapons do our combined military branches have? How many DDs? That were made after 1986?
:confused:

Sorry, I am not understanding your point here. I was refering to firearms period - not any particular type , and not full auto in particular. The quote I was refering to referenced "nervous to see anyone with guns" .

Sure, these soldiers died as have many others. Their deaths have nothing to do with the argument that full rights should be given to folks who are 18.

I respectfully disagree - If we are not going to concider a person 18 years old an adult in our society, then we shouldn't send our children off to fight and die for our causes.
 
mnrivrat,

I guess it depends on how one views those brave young men and women who bear arms to defend their country, --and especially how one views the arms they bear in their country's defense.

If one chooses to view simply them as hired killers, and their weapons as killing tools, then ...those young ones ought to be bearing arms only overseas, and killing only overseas. Lord knows we don't want to risk those young hotheaded, trigger-happy killers going Rambo in quiet neighborhoods where civilized folk live...
:barf:

Now, if one sees those young men and women for the patriots they are, and the arms they bear as the very steel of freedom's defense, then the supreme tragedy of denying full liberty to liberty's very defenders becomes terribly clear.


JM2Pesos
horge
 
Lonsberry is the local radio chat show host around here. Has good things to say in his own odd way when he gets settled down & tells 'em.

My take on the issue - aside from the abuse of power & money which leads to these restrictions - is that US culture has no "coming of age" indicator for youth. A few late teens do grow up and mature suitably to the point where we trust them to fight wars, marry, earn salaries, owe debts, carry guns, and - paling in comparison - drink alcohol; they have "come of age". Unfortunately, in a culture of prolonged adolescense, many/most don't know when or how to grow up. Those trained by society (parents included) to party, slack, shop, and lose just don't know what's serious ... to the point that they can't handle something as simple as a beer, much less guns and wives and wars. Ergo, powermongers in legislatures abuse the situation to enhance their power ... but still, when needed, pack the kids off to war (where they'll grow up in a hurry).

What is needed is a culturally accepted "coming of age" ritual: something whereby a teen can know clearly what is expected/required of adults, and knows when adulthood has been achieved. For now, the dominant ritual (such as it is) is getting drunk, laid, and a driver's license - not very lofty. Teens need to know how & when to work, marry, fight, party, etc. in a way constructive to living nobly and contributing to society.

The problem isn't so much that the drinking & CCW ages are 21. It's that enough teens are stupid kids up to and way past 21, providing a surprisingly useful tool for power-hungry legislators who care little for the liberty of others.

Make sure your kid knows what it means to be an adult - and when s/he has become one.
 
Although I understand the writer's sentiment, I take issue with his premise. Namely, that freedom is a commodity that is bestowed by a central bureaucracy or government. Freedom is an inherent component of man, who in turn lends power to government(s). The problem here is that the state government(s) have been allowed to usurp that power and consider it their own.

They need a reality check.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top