In response to Brent Hayward’s and Benjamin Rittgers’ letters concerning the Marines’ display of military weapons in the children’s tent, first allow me to paint a picture. Imagine a college student in fatigues and a young boy in blue jeans. The boy barely comes up to the top of a table full of military firearms and other such “toys.” The college student is showing him how to use such a weapon.

While giving the boy good general advice, such as “also treat the weapon as if it were live,” he also states, “don’t point it at anything you don’t want to kill.”

He then elaborates that you should only point it at the enemy. Now imagine that this really happened, and not only once. Gun safety is one thing, teaching children how to kill is another.

When was the last time a fifth grader needed to know how to use an M-16?

Or a kindergartner needed to wear a full army pack?

What morals are being taught here? It’s OK to kill, as long as it is the enemy; or if your government tells you so? Public schools get in hot water if they attempt to teach morals, yet it is permissible coming from the military?

Maybe this isn’t as bad as Eminem teaching children about the birds and the bees, but Eminem doesn’t represent a branch of our government. Eminem and his colleagues are also censored. Who censors the military? The simple answer is, we do.

I don’t deny that we need a strong military, but we also need a strong civilian conscience to monitor military actions. In Rittgers’ own words, courage “is the willingness to do what is right no matter what the consequences.”

That is exactly what the protesters were doing. They held signs, were spit at (not, as Hayward pointed out, by military personnel, but by civilians) and called names. Rittgers, did you realize that one of your “honorable and courageous” men threatened to physically harm protesters practicing free speech?

Hayward, Rittgers, the next time you want to discuss the honor and glory of our military, lets talk about My Lai.

Milana Richardson

Freshman

Computer engineering