Having met Gene Michaud myself, talked to him on a couple of occasions, and participated in two events that had national participation in the Ottawa area (D-Day and VE-Day anniversary events), I was very impressed with the level of detail, planning and organization that was demonstrated. When the busloads of students rolled in to the Remic Rapids encampment at the VE-Day site, I knew Gene obviously had things down to a science. It was disappointing to hear talk of an apparent dying of support for the school education programs even then (2005).
I do agree with Ed that times change, though, and so do sensibilities. It would be, frankly, stupid to think we could honour the sacrifice of a generation of soldiers who fought and died to fight against racist fascists, and then try and honour them by turning blind eyes to the sensitivities of newcomers to the nation they built.
I finally picked up George McDonald Fraser's autobiography Quartered Safe Out Here. He is well known as the author of Flashman, but the autobiography is also fairly well known for his frank account as a rifleman and later section commander in Burma in 1944-45 with the 9th Battalion The Border Regiment. I was struck by how he admits to being out of touch with contemporary sensitivities (my copy was published in 2007). Some of his crustier comments I agree with (I'm on board with regret that the media has demolished the notion of stiff upper lip and made it an expectation that people should suffer in public as a form of entertainment), but he talked in circles about the notion of things like reconciliation of the past.
Time marches on; there's a difference between honouring it properly and attempting to live in it. For example Fraser rightly recognized that he would not have recognized the modern Calcutta, a city that had so enthralled him in 1945, and so preferred to remember it as it was - when he didn't know what a t-bone steak was because he had never seen one before, etc. I think too many who criticize the world for moving on don't know the difference, and are too quick to criticize. Fraser lets himself revel in it a little bit, too; there's a little bitterness about the postwar amalgamations of regiments, for example - can't blame anyone for a certain sadness at seeing former regiments fade away, but of course it is easier to express sadness than explain how you would fund a standing army of 200+ 1881-era regiments - or what you would have all those soldiers doing to begin with.
In short, I feel Ed raises some valid and sensible points about weapons and how society views them. I'm not positive I completely agree with respect to how they are discussed in this matter, but I don't think it is a conversation any one person should be quick to assume they know the answers to. I'm not oblivious to the fact that our freedom was purchased with weapons of war, nor of the ability of "living history" to bring the past to life - indeed, my interactions with Gene were doing things in that same vein. The objections - if the story is accurate, and perhaps it is not - indicates there may be other legitimate stakeholders who have a voice who deserves to be heard before judgement is passed. At the end of the day, I would like to think that is the kind of society we have striven to forge.