General Peter van Uhm is the Netherlands chief of defense. In the following TED presentation, he explains why he chose a gun to make the world a better place. Others choose a pen or brush.
He intentionally picked up a gun.
I’ve not talked about my military service on my blogs. His presentation is a superb proxy for why I took my turn carrying a gun, especially one that held frightening power.
Here’s the reason in one phrase: Terrible, horrible, humanity-crushing, world-destroying, otherwise-unrestrained evil did not disappear when Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were defeated.
Someone must stand in the gap to resist. I took my turn for four years.
Evil hasn’t disappeared even today, which is why so many of our fellow citizens in democracies have also picked up a gun to make the world a better place.
Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs
Most people are like sheep – blissfully unaware of the evil around them and don’t even know how to fight off the wolves that would eat them. Probably don’t even realize there are wolves watching from the tree line over there.
Some people are like wolves – out to kill and devour the sheep.
A few people are sheepdogs – they will fight and defeat the wolves who want nothing other than to kill off as many sheep as they can catch. Chasing off the wolves or scaring them to stay away is sufficient sometimes. Other times the wolves just need to be killed.
Check out the movie American Sniper if you want current visuals of what evil looks like. In the movie you will find a brief verbal explanation of sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs along with extended visuals of each.
General Peter van Uhm and the late Chris Kyle are sheepdogs.
4 thoughts on “Why I chose a gun. Evil exists.”
This article I provided a link to has made me think a bit. Since you have served, what are your thoughts on this subject?
Here is a link to the article:
I perceive hurt and anger in his article and am sad for him. He seems to have some strong disagreement with U.S. policy which seem to drive his perspective. He is quite able to speak for himself.
I feel unworthy of those comments when said to me. I humbly accept the comments on behalf of those in harms way when I receive them because I recall the hatred and contempt poured on soldiers who returned from an active combat zone in the 1960s and 1970s. I rejoice in the change in attitude.
My previous posts on point:
5/30/11 Dear Veterans: I accepted a â€˜thank youâ€™ on your behalf
11/5/12 â€œThank you for your serviceâ€â€¦
5/28/12 Because of Americans who have fought over the last 236 yearsâ€¦
I have been saying ‘thank you for your service’ since the start of the Iraq war. I always thought I was being polite, especially since I actually meant it. However, since I read the article posted on Zerohedge I will no longer say it because I didn’t know I may have offended ‘some’ of our military veterans.
I guess there are many who will continue to say that phrase to vets, even though they know they may hurt some of them, because it makes themselves feel better for saying it. They will tell themselves that ‘they don’t need to touch fire to know it is hot’ – meaning they don’t need to have been on the battlefield to thank a vet. However, while many vets may agree that someone doesn’t have to touch fire to know it is hot, there are many that feel that someone needs to touch fire to know how it feels to get burned.
Just as a wild guess, I think most vets will understand and appreciate the comment. The veterans in my circle of acquaintances haven’t been on active duty for a while. They all (not some, but all) will cherish the dramatic change in pubic attitude to that of appreciating the sacrifice and effort of those serving today.
My further guess is that most recipients of appreciation will be uncomfortable because as one writer said “I did more than some and less than others”.