"How do you have a Veterans memorial without a weapon system as a focal point?" (Veterans used weapons.)

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:34:01 -0400

The point of the initial post was to bring awareness to the fact that Memorials represent and honor Veterans, period. It wasn't meant to sound like a cry from a "Super Soldier" nor was it a bash on current Memorials without "weapons"... Veterans, regardless of MOS/occupation used weapon systems, or are at a minimum qualified to do so, specifically those honored at memorials. I am also very appreciative of all Memorials because our Veterans deserve them, however regardless of the location of a Memorial, the Fallen Soldier Memorial shouldn't be denied because it displays a weapon. Do you agree or disagree...? Thanks for commenting. Below is my initial post.

"Are the people that make these decisions really this soft? How are these people so oblivious to the fact that what they're doing makes our country weaker than ever..?"

http://www.armytimes.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2015/04/14/fallen-soldier-monument/25760969/

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/oakland-county/veterans-group-responds-to-milford-village-ouncil-concerns-over-fallen-solders-monument

Plans for fallen soldier monuments stir controversy in Milford

A veterans group wants to complete the Veterans Memorial in Milford's Central Park with a fallen soldier monument, but the Village Council isn't sure the piece is an appropriate focal point for the park.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Apr 15 at 2015 9:40 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:40:56 -0400

Did I miss something or are soldiers / sailors / airpeople(?) / marines NOT in the business of hunting out our enemies and killing them as effectively and efficiently as they possibly can?

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Apr 15 at 2015 9:58 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:58:29 -0400

Simple solution, let the MORON who thinks that war of the roses was a price battle between two florists go to Syria, and attempt to combat ISIL without any of those icky weapons.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Apr 15 at 2015 10:31 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:31:28 -0400

I think this is PC bullshit gone amok. There was the same issue in Littleton, CO where a uber liberal soccer mom didn't want the statue of fallen SEAL Danny Dietz (yeah THAT Danny Dietz from "Lone Survivor") because it depicted him in full kit to include an M4 rifle. She didn't want her kids even lookng at a gun on a statue. Fortunatley, most people didn't support her at all.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Apr 15 at 2015 11:38 AM

SGT Richard H. — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:38:08 -0400

People are ridiculous. That said...there are some pretty iconic ones without weapons as the focal point:

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2015 11:51 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:51:03 -0400

One point to consider is while we are familiar/comfortable with weapons and weapon systems, the vast majority of civilians have no experience or exposure to weapons. This combined with the stygma of "guns are bad" and "guns kill people" probably doesn't make the average civilian open to having a prominent display of a weapon (even non-functional) in public.

I'm not saying this is right or condoning this position, merely presenting another viewpoint.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 15 at 2015 12:10 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 15 Apr 2015 12:10:00 -0400

Based on the article, this is a conflict about what is an appropriate memorial.

Not all art is for everyone. Simple as that.

The Boots, M4, and Helmet sculpture has one meaning to us Veterans, while it 'can' have entirely different meaning to another segment of the American population.

The largest feature of the sculpture is an M4, which is cosmetically identical to an AR15. Many Americans are neutral, or openly hostile when it comes to firearms Rights. This is a long running debate.

Just because this is personal to us, doesn't mean that it isn't actually offensive to others. Flaunting what others consider a "killing weapon" (as opposed to a tool of the trade), is insensitive. Our other Memorials, like Iwo Jima, Korea, The Wall don't use weapons as a "centerpiece." They are present, but they aren't focal points.

The Council is actually "representing" ALL of the People on this, not just Veterans. Which they have an obligation to do.

Though I like the Sculpture it may not be the best one, for that location. There may be one better suited, which the article hints at.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Apr 17 at 2015 9:14 PM

LTC Stephen C. — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:14:14 -0400

A famous memorial without weapons!

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Apr 17 at 2015 9:16 PM

LTC Stephen C. — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:16:34 -0400

Another well know memorial without weapons.

Response by AB Curtis Feller made Nov 3 at 2016 10:34 PM

AB Curtis Feller — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 22:34:35 -0400

In My opinion, The Fallen Soldier Memorial should be a mandatory display at all national cemeteries and any era's war memorial. Just be sure that it is era correct. I wouldn't say to place the current version at the site of a civil war memorial for example. Of course the rifle placed in the fallen soldiers memorials is Not truly a depiction of a weapon. So the pansies that don't want it displayed with the rifle need to figure out one Major thing. The rifle Was... Is... and Always Will Be there to display an instrument used by the soldier. The Actual WEAPON...Finely tuned and trained in the use of various instruments bestowed upon them. A rifle is merely a tool, capable of causing extreme carnage, when placed in the hands of various well trained weapons... Commonly referred to as the United States Military.