From the article: "United States Air Force Sharpshooter Michael Wimberly..."
Originally Posted by The Truth
Throughout my 20 years in the Air Force, I never heard of the AFSC Code "sharpshooter."
It's certainly not an officer specialty. I checked the Air Force's website, specifically the Enlisted AFSC Classifications, here, to see if it's one of the enlisted specialties.
The only logical conclusion is that by "sharpshooter," Wimberly means he qualified for the "Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon."
If that's what you meant, Wimberly, then, well, gee. So did I. In fact, I earned the ribbon eight times, on both the M9 (Beretta) and M16 (M16A2) weapons systems. Two systems means one pip (device). Very few officers carry a pip.
Thus, based on my own qualifications, Wimberly, which are apparently equal to, if not greater than your own, as well as my quarter-century experience carrying a firearm, I hereby conclude that your statements and conclusions are full of crap.
As for the heavily biased article itself, it mentions, "The police and military are trained — they are the “well-regulated militia” necessary to protect citizens."
Again, more horse hockey. In fact, the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms specifically states the following:
"...the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that Congress has established the present National Guard under its power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia" (p. 5).
Thus, the article's distinction that "well-regulated militia" is necessary "to protect citizens" is a contradiction in terms
Citizens ARE the militia.