[QUOTE=Taber]
Some people call me the gangster of love
[/QUOTE]
LOL
But seriously…
A military monument isn’t a celebration of violence. I think of it as a reminder of what kind of a world we still live in.
“The soldier, above all other people, always prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest scars of war." - General Douglas MacArthur
I think that people who protest things like that have no concept of the world we live in.
They could replace the gun with a radio. 
There’s nothing wrong with a man holding his gun, but it’s really something that should be done in the privacy of one’s home.
This is my rifle, this is my gun…
This is indeed a scandal, and an affront to all American soldiers who fight for freedom by crouching awkwardly in place while doing nothing in particular. Years from now, this noble memorial to “Ol’ Squatty” will illustrate to future generations how underfunded U.S. military forces bravely faced supply shortages by constructing their own body armor out of empty shoe boxes.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
A sane person ought to recognize that a Navy SEAL is a different sort of person than a trenchcoat killer, and that if you put up a statue memorializing him, he just might be toting his rifle.
[/QUOTE]
What’s the diff? Government paycheck? Killed people from another country?
I don’t disagree that the outrage is silly.
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Well, it’s about time someone made the effort to disarm statues of military heroes. There’s just too much violence in the world.
For a good example we can look to our Canadian neighbours, who are being shielded by their government from having to witness pillow fight violence on TV.
[/QUOTE]
Yes! We already have disarmed statues of soldiers on our war memorials :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Vagus]
They could replace the gun with a radio. 
[/QUOTE]
<snerk>
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I don’t think they should erect that statue.
Not because of the gun though; I just think it looks crappy. The sculptor says he used the last picture of the Navy SEAL, but it looks awkward and off balance compared to the original. The statue looks like it is squatting to pinch a loaf, and both hands are oddly proportioned.
I hope they didn’t pay much for it.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll say. I’d object to it because that is one of the UGLIEST statues I’ve ever seen.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
I’ll say. I’d object to it because that is one of the UGLIEST statues I’ve ever seen.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, don’t be such a killjoy. Think how much public entertainment it will provide for the young people of Littleton, Colorado. If I lived there, I know I’d never get tired of sculpting mud pies into enormous turd sculptures to place under it.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Some people are offended by art that has guns. Some people are offended by art that has religious symbols. Some people are offended by art that has nudity.
[/QUOTE]
I’m offended by all art. It should all be banned. Guys named Art should be banned also.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
After all, it isn’t as if we haven’t done itbefore.
[/QUOTE]
For something we haven’t done before, one must travel to Russia:
A skyscraper in the form of AK-47 gun is going to be built in Izhevsk, motherland of AK-47 Inventor.
I’m sure it’ll be lovely when done, perhaps not for all tastes, but more honest than a Navy SEAL without his rifle.
While I don’t believe for one second that a soldier holding a gun would influence a kid to shoot up his school, I do believe that a commemorative statue of a soldier holding a gun in an aggressive pose like that does contribute to our glorification of violence and blind loyalty to the army.
A statue of a soldier staring me down, in heavy armor, holding an assault rifle, does not evoke in me feelings of patriotism or freedom, but serves as a reminder of the threat of government intervention when people just can’t play nice. Guns should be accepted as an embarrassing necessity for peace.
Something like this is more to my tastes, as the stance the soldier is taking is more defensive than aggressive.
Heck, to be really realistic, the statue should be posed while pillaging an enemy village and violating a captured woman.
But then, I understand there are laws against statutory rape.
I have it on good authority that a handful of Littleton residents are upset that the artist felt the need to shave the soldier.
And why did the artist decide to introduce all of the subject’s fingers into the statue when clearly fingers aren’t his sculpting strength?
[QUOTE=ForumBot]
Guns should be accepted as an embarrassing necessity for peace.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a good way of putting it. Thanks.
[QUOTE=CaveMike]
I have it on good authority that a handful of Littleton residents are upset that the artist felt the need to shave the soldier.
And why did the artist decide to introduce all of the subject’s fingers into the statue when clearly fingers aren’t his sculpting strength?
[/QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that mittens be added?
No, but he could have hidden the hands by plunging them wrist-deep into a pool of terrorist blood.
Maybe the sculptor could give the statue really long wrist hair that completely obscures the hands.
That guy went over there to protect our freedom, including our freedom of speech so these peaceniks should just shut the fuck up and kiss this statue’s ass.
