Yet, it seems, here we are.

At The Tennessean, two Marine officers now in the private sector have decided that not only is the Second Amendment open to all kinds of gun control but seemingly suggest that our oath of service somehow mandates that we support it.

As veterans of the United States Marine Corps, we each took an oath when we joined our service to protect and defend our country and the Constitution that governs it.

Ultimately, we committed ourselves to protecting our fellow Americans – our neighbors, family and communities. Though our active-duty service is over, we – and so many other fellow veterans – still carry this oath and commitment with us.

We did not put our service to our country and the Constitution down when we transitioned to civilian life.

Now, so far this sounds like something a lot of veterans would say. In fact, I’ve said as much at various times because, well, it’s true. I might have been discharged from service but my oath doesn’t have an expiration date.

Yet it’s from here things start to go sideways.

USA has a constitutional obligation to protect the people

 

This year for Veterans Day observances, when our nation honors those who served in the military, we are asking you to reflect on the oath we took and consider your role, as civilians, in helping us uphold it. Because right now in Tennessee, the safety of our people is being challenged.

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic….”

As citizens of our great nation, our right to keep and bear arms is clearly outlined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. We each support and defend the Second Amendment, and we exercise this right ourselves.

However, many extreme interpretations of the Second Amendment ignore the responsibilities of those who chose to keep and bear arms. These interpretations are incomplete and have had dangerous outcomes that have cost innocent lives. They are challenging the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness upon which our country was founded.

In other words, their oath requires them to support gun control.

See, they seem to believe that the Constitution mandates protecting the people, which I get why someone might feel that way. Yet because it supposedly does, that means we veterans are oathbound to do whatever it takes to protect the people.

Yet the authors fail in a couple of key places.

First, they never actually cite any place in the Constitution were the United States government is directed to protect the people from any or all threats. If you’re going to make the case that the Constitution demands this and that this supersedes the Second Amendment itself, you need to provide some kind of citation for specifically where this happens.

And there’s a reason why they didn’t. It’s just not there.

This idea that the government can protect people is great and all that, but it’s just not possible. Even if the government decided to essentially cover us all in bubble wrap and forbid anyone doing anything dangerous, accidents would still happen. Homicides would still happen.

Further, for all the talk of respecting and even defending the Constitution, nothing changes the fact that these two are ignoring the whole “shall not be infringed” part of the Second Amendment. They don’t even make the case that it’s some irrelevant.

Yes, I know the Bruen decision still allowed at least some avenues for gun control–particularly as it existed in the Founders’ era–but the text didn’t change.

As a veteran, I’m downright insulted that these two not only have twisted their oath beyond all recognition but are trying to suggest to people like myself that we’re somehow obligated to do the same.

No, my oath matters too much to allow two people with absolutely no expertise apparent on either the Constitution, the Second Amendment, or guns in general tell me to foreswear my oath on their say so. It’s just not happening.