....All that being said . . . sure, there are veterans who are anti-hunting and anti-gun. It is their RIGHT to hold that position, whether we agree with them or not. But that does not change the fact that by serving, they made a commitment to the very Constitution that gives us the right to support gun ownership--but which also gives them the right to oppose it....
Though I'd admit I don't agree with quite all the rest that you said, I appreciate the time and effort in your reply.
On the previous page, you mentioned that an honorable discharge has 'proven' some higher authority to make decisions on the 2nd, admittedly to oppose it. I would hope you're not saying that we should accept their decisions, and leave it at that.
Since you expanded a bit on what you feel the value of an honorable discharge is for the example in question. Possibly you can see that once politicized, the commitment seems to more to the self than the Constitution. I also think there's a difference between swearing an oath for the purposes of resume building, and actual words and actions of commitment. As soon as that good place to leave it, the discharge, was crossed, the budding politician testified before congress and continues to show to this day that commitment seems to mean bending, skirting around and evolving of the Constitution. All I was offering was an opinion example that it may not be the best advice to blindly follow a blanket qualification. If one advocates for an anti-hunting and anti-gun regulator and judicial appointer based on the status of their military discharge, couldn't that reasonably call into question an individual's commitment to the 2nd?
I've mentioned it a few times in the past and stand by my appreciation for your service to the country.
