I feel compelled to challenge Matt Treadwell's definition of patriotism ("Utilizing free speech doesn't equal a lack of patriotism," SN 01/22) for the following three reasons.

One, a true patriot is willing to kill an enemy or die to preserve the fundamental principles of America. If you are not willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for your country, then I think you are still a very good person and deserving of all the protections afforded to you under the Constitution, but I would categorize you more as a "freedom enthusiast" or "freedom connoisseur" than a true patriot.

Second, Treadwell insists on being a patriot, yet emphasizes the importance of being a "global citizen," apparently oblivious to the inherent contradiction in these two concepts. Globalization is the antithesis of American independence, a fact Treadwell and many others should think about a little more before they put so much admiration in the United Nations.

And lastly, it is true a patriot has the strength to seek and criticize injustice, but there is a difference between constructive criticism and pointless childish rhetoric. True criticism has original thought, provides practical and logical insight and many times provides solutions.

If the liberal definition of a patriot is anyone who utilizes his or her constitutional rights, then does this make anyone who owns a firearm a patriot as well?

Kevin M. Zwiker
Lansing Community College student