• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open carriers are 'wannabe vigilantes'

Angelo

Newbie
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
1
Location
Anthem
If anyone were to say to me what they are suggesting in that article I'd ask them to show me a single case where that happened. Typical liberal, grasping at straws to try to take our rights away by insinuating that nothing but bad can come from us being prepared to defend ourselves and those around us from criminals.
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
United States Air Force Sharpshooter Michael Wimberly wrote:
As a retired commercial bank loan officer, I have experienced two armed robberies. I stared down the barrel of a 45-caliber semiautomatic handgun pointed at my forehead. Children were screaming, and no one knew what might tip the scale of tense engagement. We were all forced to lie on the floor. Later, police told us, "Lucky no shots were fired. We know these guys and they are bad dudes!"
And this my friends is the reason why you should not open carry....
 
Last edited:

MatieA

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
400
Location
Egbert, Wyoming, USA
This article made me sick. Hope it's not a repost.

"The United States is loaded with wannabe vigilante “patriots” and those who feel they need to carry their gun everywhere they go. Many of these wannabe vigilantes are advocating for*open carry*laws in their respective states."

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...s-a-few-choice-words-for-open-carry-wannabes/

The Author of that article needs someone to tell him what the word "context" means and how it applies to the wording in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When the BOR was written the word "regulated" was not used the same way it is now. So many people use the modern (currently accepted) meanings of words that were used in a completely different way in a past era.
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
United States Air Force Sharpshooter Michael Wimberly wrote:

And this my friends is the reason why you should not open carry....

Were you saying this sarcastically? If not:

I think we've heard all this foolishness before...
You carry however you wish, and I'll do the same.
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Two things.

First, this scares me far more than an armed citizenry, "and carrying those arms is to be regulated by yes, the government". Anything regulated [modern definition] by any government is not about to remain static. You can bet that future "bureaucratps" will want to add their spin to this in an effort to advance their standing, their cause, and their agenda.

Next, the meaning of the phrase, "well regulated". At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the root word "regulate" in this context meant "to keep and make regular". It did NOT mean what the writer of this article insists.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Two things.

First, this scares me far more than an armed citizenry, "and carrying those arms is to be regulated by yes, the government". Anything regulated [modern definition] by any government is not about to remain static. You can bet that future "bureaucratps" will want to add their spin to this in an effort to advance their standing, their cause, and their agenda.

Next, the meaning of the phrase, "well regulated". At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the root word "regulate" in this context meant "to keep and make regular". It did NOT mean what the writer of this article insists.

Indeed "to keep and make regular" = normal, ordinary accepted practice.

Therein one may find the root/basis for OCDO's goal of normalizing the OC of handguns as we go about our everyday lives.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Interesting to note the addicting article alludes to Mr. Wimberly being a sharpshooter in the USAF, however, the Houston Chronicle (aka Chron) states Mr. Wimberly was certified as a sharpshooter! Distinct and huge difference.

Good Heavens, so were the majority of those recruits who entered the USAF during the Conflict as they were run through basic training to meet the country's need. Remember the AF was trying to prove its muster against the other armed services and the TIs at the range if you hit the target consistently were awarded sharpshooter status. H3ll, one recruit have over a 150 holes in his target. Unfortunately, it was a 100 round range. didn't matter the blokes on either side of the recruit only had 75 or so holes in their targets as they were also awarded the sharpshooter certification. everyone passed as sharpshooter and off they went to SE Asia for the Conflict.

it is obvious the Chron is against the TX OC legislature and dredged this paper pusher up to make a point. I am also sure they didn't check his DD 214 - service record to validate his award of the sharpshooter. http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Sharpshooter-takes-aim-at-open-carry-6110845.php

it is also interesting to not Mr. Whatshisname only displays the small arms marksmanship ribbon, an Outstanding Unit award, as well as the Nation Defence Service award in this foto. oh and reading his twitter acct...it appears he promotes fotos of the aviator G Bush...https://twitter.com/michaelmrw

I'm sorry the alleged sharpshooter couldn't have stayed any more than minimum tour in the USAF and then sat behind a desk for the last 45 years pushing papers and due to some random isolated incident - real or perceived as it is not verified btw, where he now worries about some citizen have a gun which could have saved his life if things the bad guys had gone south. Oh and the police telling Mr. whatshisname the robbers were bad guy...what bovine manure...in the eyes of the law, everyone is a bad guy!

of remembrance is the killeen TX massacre where the bad guy didn't stop...perhaps, just perhaps someone w/a firearm could have ended the rampage before 23 ppl died that fateful day in 1991. http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-17/news/mn-740_1_worst-mass

bottom line the bloke appears to be a fraud and out for his thirty seconds of political fame...you know i always wondered who handled the big oil money for those big power broker(s) guess we all know now huh!!

ipse

ps...WTF the Chron article is written by Mr whatshisname !!! self promoting BS...
 
Last edited:

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
United States Air Force Sharpshooter Michael Wimberly wrote:
As a retired commercial bank loan officer, I have experienced two armed robberies. I stared down the barrel of a 45-caliber semiautomatic handgun pointed at my forehead. Children were screaming, and no one knew what might tip the scale of tense engagement. We were all forced to lie on the floor. Later, police told us, "Lucky no shots were fired. We know these guys and they are bad dudes!"
And this my friends is the reason why you should not open carry....

Were you saying this sarcastically? If not:

I think we've heard all this foolishness before...
You carry however you wish, and I'll do the same.
MamaLiberty, I wrote the Cliff notes. Solus wrote the novel.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Indeed "to keep and make regular" = normal, ordinary accepted practice.

Therein one may find the root/basis for OCDO's goal of normalizing the OC of handguns as we go about our everyday lives.

Yes, the way it was explained when I learned this was this. To keep meant to have a firearm; no real surprise there. To make regular meant to have it at the ready... at hand, regular.
 

DrMark

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,559
Location
Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
A mechanical watch must be well regulated (via adjustment) if it expected to maintain accuracy.

Similarly, a militia must be well regulated (via training & practice) if it expected to maintain proficiency.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
A mechanical watch must be well regulated (via adjustment) if it expected to maintain accuracy.

Similarly, a militia must be well regulated (via training & practice) if it expected to maintain proficiency.
That is not the original meaning though.

While proficiency is good, such cannot be allowed to define or limit the right i.e. as in only the very well trained be approved to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:

DrMark

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,559
Location
Hampton Roads, Virginia, USA
While proficiency is good, such cannot be allowed to define or limit the right i.e. as in only the very well trained be approved to keep and bear arms.
As part of the subjunctive clause, it does not define or limit the right. The pre-existing right of the people is recognized (no approval by Gov't needed, as you know), but the reminder to stay prepared and in practice (and why) is added as context.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
As part of the subjunctive clause, it does not define or limit the right. The pre-existing right of the people is recognized (no approval by Gov't needed, as you know), but the reminder to stay prepared and in practice (and why) is added as context.

Yes, this is very clear without any historical analysis by robed secular priests. Even that "landmark" case coming to the same conclusion had enough qualifiers to render the amendment a dead letter to an anti gun court, as informed Floridians recently were reminded.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
This article made me sick. Hope it's not a repost.

From the article: "United States Air Force Sharpshooter Michael Wimberly..."

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.

Nope.

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.
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
1. Who doesn't want to be a hero? Weren't we all raised with the values of doing good and being the good guy? When did wanting to protect ourselves and others from harm turn into a bad thing?

2. It's been highly-supported that private citizens spend much more time familiarizing themselves with their firearm(s). There are three subsets of gun owners (imo). Enthusiasts/carriers, home protection owners, and nefarious/illegal owners. If you compare apples to apples (LEO vs. Enthusiasts/carriers), the proficiency argument is likely a non-starter.

3. Wrongly reading the Second Amendment is f**king idiotic.
 
Top