• 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.

Tennessee Patriot Published An Article I Wrote

Status
Not open for further replies.

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
The second issue of the Tennessee Patriot came out this month with an article I wrote concerning what I thought were the real fears of the anti-gunners regarding "The Return of the Old Wild West."

The entire publication can be viewed in PDF format at www.tennesseepatriot.net (use the "quarterly Paper" link and look for the 2nd issue. My article is on page 13

Or

I have attached the article by itself in PDF.
 

Attachments

  • wildwest.pdf
    15.1 KB · Views: 117

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
Thanks Grape. I've just started another one that I plan to submit for the next issue that will come out in October. This one will be promoting OC and attempting to get more Tennesseans to "come out of the closet."
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
The second issue of the Tennessee Patriot came out this month with an article I wrote concerning what I thought were the real fears of the anti-gunners regarding "The Return of the Old Wild West."

You're full of **** Jerry Morris. "To those that fret about the return of “the Old Wild West
Days” I say SUCK IT UP! Bring on those Good Old “Wild West” Ways!"

You're the type who would probably call the cops on someone who legally open carries. I meant WILL call not probably. You're more anti than a Brady.
______________________________________________________________

................................--Rule Reminder--

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
I find, even though I have been here, what, today, I am starting to ignore the rants of the person above. Seems he cannot stand a simple question.

Interesting article.

I am wondering why you use the term "marxist" to describe the opponents of gun control. What made you come to this decision? (Curious, not against the viewpoint...)

Why do we drive on the right, instead of the left, like Europe? Simple, you protected your pistol from being grabbed by a passer by while on horseback this way. They would have to reach across your body to get it...
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
I am wondering why you use the term "marxist" to describe the opponents of gun control. What made you come to this decision? (Curious, not against the viewpoint...)

...

Don't you mean the PROpponants of gun control?

Considering that I have heard time and time again liberal politicians that are pro gun control, quote Karl Marx, "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs," (from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto) I thought it appropriate use of the term.
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
Ah. Ok. Good answer. Yes, I meant the proponents... Sigh. What you get when half asleep and type. Just this day and age, so many people toss around this term and socialism, communism, and others without actually knowing what they mean.

Good article.
 
Last edited:

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
I have to admit that while the article seems to read well, my observations of your individual character on here seems to be enough to put one into a state of perplexion.

During the days of the "Wild West", it was common to see revolvers carried in the hand from store to store. Even to see rifles slung over ones back.

Hell, even transports had their own designated riflemen.

Yet you have, in the past, attacked other people for doing these same exact things. You paint this picture of noble purpose in retuning to the moral tenents of the "Wild West", to which I would agree. Then you attack those who behave in the same manner.

I'm sorry TF16, but your article comes across as false at best. A highly inaccurate depiction of your true personality and beliefs through overdramatic dictation at worse.

--Would you call the cops on somebody walking down the street with a shouldered/slung rifle?
Yeah. You would. Yet this was common practice in the "Old Wild West".

--Would you submit to law enforcement as a purported example of mental deficiency, any individual choosing to carry a pistol in the hand, even where law demands it?
Yes. Yes you would. Yet this was commonplace in the "Old Wild West".



For an individual doing absolutely nothing but carrying a slung handgun, in a completely legal manner, as well as being ordered to the ground at the end of a shotgun by a park ranger, you stated this:

Pace, kwik has executed 2 events so far that have resulted in warrented encounters with LEO. I think the LEO handled the situation fairly well. kwik doesn't agree.

But both actions carried the potential for an engagement with another armed citizen that may not have reacted correctly. Either one of kwiks excursions could have gone bad in several ways, before LEO ever got involved. Nothing bad happened, but the actions were still questionable from a motivationalstandpoint.

Thats a pretty normal thing to see in the "Old Wild West", but somehow, while lobbying for a return to said "Old Wild West", you simultaneously reject any action that is perfectly period normal.

Can you explain this conundrum?


Here again, you are describing how a "normal handgun" is acceptable, and imposing a "reasonable restriction" on what should be carried, by lending credibility to stereotypical or inaccurate thought.

No luck involved. The .44 mag revolver is a conventional handgun. The AK pistol, although technically a "handgun" by it's construction, is not a conventional handgun. It's a novelty. The park rangers weren't expecting anyone to carry such a weapon and obviously didn't know its categorization.

If you expect every LEO to know about every weapon that has ever been made in the world, you are living in a dream world. Many are not firearms enthusiast and therefore do not keep up with all the latest weapons on the market.And they're not required to.

So. Let's return to the "Old Wild West", so long as we leave out shouldered shotguns, purported "assault rifles", "abnormally shaped pistols", and standardized long guns. Right?

That's not the "Old Wild West". That's "individually specific fantasy-land.".

Sorry, but the whole thing reads as a projected "feel good" article.

Otherwise, you would not make so many concessions.
 

LV XD9

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
145
Location
Henderson, Nevada, USA
What amazes me is that such a poorly-written article, full of both spelling and grammatical errors, was published in any sort of paper (even if it is some up-and-coming rag no one's ever heard of.) Did no one bother to proofread it before it went to press and/or was posted on the site?

A fifth-grade student would be lucky to skate by with a passing grade after turning in a paper like that. I mean, it's one thing to play it fast and loose with grammar and spelling when you're just BS'ing with someone on an internet forum, but this is, presumably, something you want to be taken seriously.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
So. Let's return to the "Old Wild West", so long as we leave out shouldered shotguns, purported "assault rifles", "abnormally shaped pistols", and standardized long guns. Right?
.

Let's cut to the chase on this:

LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. ............................. and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
Let's cut to the chase on this:

LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. ............................. and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules


Let's cut to the real chase:

IN RELATION TO KWIKS CARRY, THE CORRELATION IS RELEVANT ON THIS SITE!:

#1.
Having a conversation about idealism centered around a common time period and way of life, and then picking what you like out of it, detracts WHOLLY from the overall message of "Let's go back to that time period"!

You can't sit here and talk about the "Old Wild West", making correlations to the respectful way of life there and all activities in it, YET ADHERE TO THE IDEOLOGY THAT ALL WAS SUCH BECAUSE PEOPLE CARRIED "Normal, holstered handguns in daily life"!


#2. Kwiks activities in general were in complete compliance with anything that would have occurred in the "Old Wild West"!

Yet he was ostracized for them. I am sensing a tinge of the hypocritical.


I believe the intent was good, but I don't think Task Force 16 really knows what he believes. If the people here honestly think that you can preach about a time period where people, good, honest, and hardworking genuine freedom loving Americans, walked up and down the street with rifles on their backs, shotguns on their shoulders, pistols in their hands, and then simultaneously talk about how wonderful the "Old Wild West" was in an attempt to support your very narrow focus of "Properly holstered normal handguns in daily life", then you are dismissing the very point of the 2nd Amendment.
 
T

TN-treefrmr

Guest
Slowfiveoh

Properly Holstered Handguns being openly carried.
That leaves out KWIK and if you support KWIK you would be included in being excluded.
The fun thing is that people like KWIK and his supporters liven up the conversation around here and bring more people to the site.
Being an Old Man, if I had been in the area where Kwik decided to promote his right to offensively carry a weapon I would have been at ready and fired with the least movement on his part as I am of the opinion that if you draw a weapon it is to shoot it or to clean it. As the later did not appear to be the case I would not have called the law because I would have felt threatened and in immediate danger. Flight may have been available but putting a hazard at your back is not a way to continue living.
Once upon a time I was approached by a person with a gun in the hand. He ended up with a broken gun and hand and I spent time in the hospital because I was not armed then. He was smiling and talking as if he knew me when he approached.
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
slowfiveoh, Kwik's shenanigans is off the topic of the thread.

The point which in the old west had people carry, and had armed guards, well... where to start.

Yes, back in the old west, the civilized viewpoint was lawful citizens needed to carry to protect themselves and property. This was part of the point of the article. The other part is we need to get back to that view.

AS for armed guards, well, those are still around. Look at the next time a Brinks truck delivers cash. Well accepted, due to the rent-a-cop being in uniform...

As for personally attacking the OP, well that is also off topic, and against the forum rules. Since I am not an admin here, I can only give my opinion on their rule. But, if you attack the poster, you only prove their point. And prove you are a poor debater.

OFF TOPIC: As for the extremely valid point TN-treefrmr makes about if someone approached him, in the manner similar to what Kwik did, shows how dangerous Kwik's actions were. And points to validity to the Dept of Safety's action of revoking his privilege. Luckily for Kwik, the officers he approached are more constrained by the law than his former fellow permit holders. I would have pointedly asked Kwik what he was doing, if he was a permit holder, and would have placed cover (not concealment) between us. My hand would have been on my 45, and the holster strap would have been snapped open.
 
Last edited:

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
Properly Holstered Handguns being openly carried.
That leaves out KWIK and if you support KWIK you would be included in being excluded.

Your ignorant presumption of what constitutes "Properly Holstered" is making me laugh.

Slung is indeed properly holstered for handguns that do not have a holster solution.


The fun thing is that people like KWIK and his supporters liven up the conversation around here and bring more people to the site.

No, not buy any stretch of the senile imagination.

The truly fun thing is watching people denigrate a law abiding citizen because of their discomfort of his wholly legal activity, then simultaneously profess to be supporters of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. It is especially funny, TN-treefrmr, when derelicts like yourself come on and bash the Anti's for "irrational fear" on the same basis of whole and complete support of the 2nd Amendment.

When that argument is not enough to sway them, they defer to site rules like conversational cowards, swaying away from the true concepts of the 2nd Amendment in favor of hiding behind John and Mikes segregated support system for the 2nd Amendment.

It's just easier than facing reality.

Hello Mr. Brady. Here is your chair. Have a seat.

Being an Old Man, if I had been in the area where Kwik decided to promote his right to offensively carry a weapon I would have been at ready and fired with the least movement on his part as I am of the opinion that if you draw a weapon it is to shoot it or to clean it. As the later did not appear to be the case I would not have called the law because I would have felt threatened and in immediate danger. Flight may have been available but putting a hazard at your back is not a way to continue living.

And you would have been wrong. Even if the "clean-up" went in your favor, you have just displayed the kind of moral inadequacy present in those who are patently against the exercising of our rights.

I am sure it would have been kwiks fault that your ignorance of THE LAW would have been the precise reason for your killing of an innocent man.

Reality check for you:

It would have been ILLEGAL for your to carry your weapon in a holster, or even concealed according to pre-McDonald Bell Meade law!

Do you get this?

Are you smart enough to grasp this?

I sure hope so. Quite a few others aren't bright enough to comprehend this.

Once upon a time I was approached by a person with a gun in the hand. He ended up with a broken gun and hand and I spent time in the hospital because I was not armed then. He was smiling and talking as if he knew me when he approached.

Wow, you are a super-ninja!

Do you throw smoke-bombs and apply well placed karate kicks disassembling the falling weapons slide, magazine, and safety assembly on the way down?

Damn you're hilarious.

Stay around, I like you! :lol:

slowfiveoh, Kwik's shenanigans is off the topic of the thread...

There is no desire to continue a debate about kwiks specific actions in here, other than to specify with great clarity that the Utopian dream that was the trusting, safe, familial environment of the "Old Wild West" cannot be limited in perspective to the carry of "Properly holstered, normal handguns in daily life".

That was NOT the specific intent of the 2nd Amendment, nor was the environment presented by the "Old Wild West" one of exclusively holstered "normal" handguns. To avoid the reality of other firearms and the environment created by such liberal exercising of the 2nd Amendment, is to UNDERMINE the 2nd itself, and as many singular organizations do to much ballyhooing, present limitations on an outright freedom.

Saying otherwise is definitely presumptive ignorance.

As to "armed guards", you completely, and totally miss the point.

I am referring to those accompanying wagon trains and the like, who simply acted as armed escorts with no law or business affiliation. I am referring to those people who truly acted in a capacity as neighbor and lookout.

In final response to your comment about Bell Meade, you would be JUST AS WRONG as TN-treefrmr as well. You would be breaking the law, and kill an innocent man over your "discomfort".

TN-treefrmr reeks of macho attitude. I have no doubt his breaking of said law, and slaying of an innocent man, would be a bravado laden attempt to prove a point.

Perhaps, he could prove his point from a 6x9 with an effeminate cellmate. Maybe this would make him feel like "the man".
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
We are guests here and follow, not make, the rules and that is the point.

Why anyone would voluntarily come here and then insult the privilege and other posters and expect to be taken at full merit is the question.

If you do not agree with any of these Rules then please do not use this site, because BY USING THIS SITE YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE IRREVOCABLY AGREED TO THESE RULES. Please note that these Rules may be revised and reissued without notice at any time. You should review the current Rules regularly, since your continued use of the site will be deemed as irrevocable acceptance of any revisions.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
 
Last edited:

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
ah, clarification. You stated transports, not families in wagon trains moving west. Transports indicate corporate or business involvement. Like stagecoaches, where the fellow riding shotgun was paid to do so.

Seriously, personal attacks? Poor practice. This is the internet, you have no clue who is on the other side of your keyboard. Violation of the rules.

Fail.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
ah, clarification. You stated transports, not families in wagon trains moving west. Transports indicate corporate or business involvement. Like stagecoaches, where the fellow riding shotgun was paid to do so.

Seriously, personal attacks? Poor practice. This is the internet, you have no clue who is on the other side of your keyboard. Violation of the rules.

Fail.

Incorrect.

A transport is any conveyance meant to move large amounts of people or supplies. This does not in any way imply it has to have business or governmental association.

Definition fail.

Also, personal attacks?

You mean like making it clear that you and another individual would shoot somebody dead for lawful carry while YOU were acting in a criminal manner?

I wonder if questionably ad-hominem commentary is more egregious in nature than stating you would blatantly kill somebody for merely having a pistol in their hand and "sneezing"?

Internet tough guy alert!

Also, just as your commentary towards kwik is painfully simple and single minded, did the thought not occur to you that maybe kwik is a human being, on the other side of the keyboard?

I am betting you don't care, because your mind is made up.

So lets summarize you and TN-treefrmr right quick:

--Would carry illegally
--Would shoot a lawful citizen for simply carrying a firearm
--TN-treefrmr has broken a guys wrist for merely walking towards him with a pistol (What a ninja!)


Let me know when you decide you want a truly bipartisan debate. Just like every individual before you over the past year of this, you will slink back into the precipice of ambiguous and selective enforcement of laws, and that the "carry of a normally holstered gun" is what should have been done in Bell Meade despite it's illegality.

Let's see.

Test #1:

Who is acting unsafe in these images?

This gentleman:
leonardbarreldown1.jpg


or

This officer:
doofus6.jpg


I'm betting the officer was a-ok peachy keen in this video.

Right? :)
 
T

TN-treefrmr

Guest
Slow

I had no option back then but to push the gun out of my face and into a wall which broke the persons hand. However his buddies ended up putting me in the hospital for a couple of weeks. I have been aware since then and a weapon being carried at ready is a hazard to all around. You being in Washington I am sure you took the Carry class in the state of Tennessee and are aware of the local laws I carry where I am permitted to carry and ignore the Blue Laws that were meant for another time. I have never attempted to lasso a fish though but that would be the same as snaring and that is unsportsmanlike.
A person who approaches you with a weapon drawn or at ready puts you in a life or death situation. You have less than a second to respond to the threat. Placing your hand on your weapon is a provocative move so it requires you to follow through and face the consequences because you are probably also protecting a loved one who is walking with you.
Back to the Wild West. You seem to lack an understanding of history and commerce. The wagon trains hired a guide to lead them to the west and that was a business situation as they also hired guards to protect them but that would have also been business. Individuals who could afford weapons carried them for protection but it was primarily rifles that could be used for hunting rather than handguns that are designed to kill people.
As I stated before I have no problem with people carrying weapons in a non threatening manner. I also believe that the more law abiding people that carry weapons the lower the crime rate will be. That being said I also think with the current unrest within our society it has become necessary to obtain permits to carry weapons just as a means to review a persons legal status to carry.
As far as reverting back to the old west mentality. I think there are to many myths about the old west to know what really happened during those times.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
I had no option back then but to push the gun out of my face and into a wall which broke the persons hand. However his buddies ended up putting me in the hospital for a couple of weeks.

This is NOT how you initially described it!

You are starting to sound like a certain swine-fellow.


I have been aware since then and a weapon being carried at ready is a hazard to all around.

Do you understand, "Carried at the ready?".

No. You really don't. If you DO, then you clearly misperceived what Leonard actually DID.

He is carrying the firearm in the hand. He is not brandishing it:

bran·dish (br
abreve.gif
n
prime.gif
d
ibreve.gif
sh)tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es 1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.

n. A menacing or defiant wave or flourish.


THIS, is not a brandish:
bravobulls


Neither is what Leonard did while carrying the AK.

Yet you would shoot him, as you have stated many times.


You being in Washington I am sure you took the Carry class in the state of Tennessee and are aware of the local laws I carry where I am permitted to carry and ignore the Blue Laws that were meant for another time.

Ah yes! The old, "You don't live here so you don't know" argument.

Newsflash! This just in!

Apparently, the law, is the LAW. Slipping by in cities that specify you must carry the Army or Navy Colt Revolver in hand with a gun on your hip makes you a criminal. "Blue Laws" or not.

So thanks for admitting that you break the law, and you don't even care when you do it.

I have never attempted to lasso a fish though but that would be the same as snaring and that is unsportsmanlike.

If the law prohibits you from lassoing a fish, then please don't. That would make you a criminal.
If the law allows for you to attempt to lasso a fish, then lasso to your hearts desire. May no law enforcement officers give you grief for abiding by the law.

A person who approaches you with a weapon drawn or at ready puts you in a life or death situation.

I love hearing advice from tactically unsound minds.

A weapon drawn is not a threat. This stupidity will get you killed. What if the guy is drawing his firearm because he sees a guy with an ice pick walking up behind you ready to shank you in the neck, and you draw and blow this guy away?

Acceptable friendly fire as you die in a pool of your own blood by being stabbed by icepick, right?

A weapon at the ready I would agree with. Again ,your situational awareness and tactical prowess should enable you to avoid these scenarios.

You have less than a second to respond to the threat.

Wrong.

You have less than a second to make a decision, and evaluate. Unfortunately, you may end up dead if you hesitate. Also as unfortunate, is seeing someone walking towards you "at the ready" and creating a bunghole in their head and learning they were actually trying to protect you, or your loved one.

This all goes back to good situational awareness and tactical response.

You seem very trigger happy to me.

Placing your hand on your weapon is a provocative move so it requires you to follow through and face the consequences because you are probably also protecting a loved one who is walking with you.

Again, you need significant training. I would not trust being around you.

Please apply to tactical schools immediately.


Back to the Wild West. You seem to lack an understanding of history and commerce. The wagon trains hired a guide to lead them to the west and that was a business situation as they also hired guards to protect them but that would have also been business.

You play too much "Oregon Trail".

Private individuals comprised the entirety of the wagon parties in most cases. Not all were accompanied by dedicated trackers. Often agreements were made as to who would do what role, and a compromise would be reached.

This makes it no more a business, than me selling my car to a neighbor makes me a car salesman.

Did you know it was not uncommon for wagon trains to separate over vast distances?

Did you not know that in these situations it was solely up to the frontiersman and women to fend for themselves?

Individuals who could afford weapons carried them for protection but it was primarily rifles that could be used for hunting rather than handguns that are designed to kill people.

Thanks for substantiating heavily, one of my primary points. However, the statement that handguns are "designed to kill people" is completely incorrect.

Handguns are meant as a defensive measure. It does not matter whether the target is animal, or human. You can even eat an animal.

I'd imagine a Peacemaker would make a great tool to quickly dispatch of a stock cattle, were the almighty sledgehammer to come up missing or lost.

I don't know where some of you come up with the "Designed to kill people" bit.

Keep in mind there were several rounds used in rifles to hunt back then that are significantly less powerful than modern handguns. Some modern handguns are nearly as accurate too.

As I stated before I have no problem with people carrying weapons in a non threatening manner.

Like on the back, pointed straight down and no other direction in the hand, or resting on ones chest with no hands near the firearm?

I also believe that the more law abiding people that carry weapons the lower the crime rate will be.

So long as they are strictly regulated "weapons" of your stringent choosing and analysis.

Yes?

That being said I also think with the current unrest within our society it has become necessary to obtain permits to carry weapons just as a means to review a persons legal status to carry.

And this is perfectly acceptable to you?

As far as reverting back to the old west mentality. I think there are to many myths about the old west to know what really happened during those times.

Then you are watching too many westerns.


Here is a good start:

http://www.wildwesthistory.org/
 

deadpool2

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
34
Location
, ,
HvyMtl and Tn Treefrmr, If you haven't already guessed it is pointless to argue with slow, as he is the blind follower of kwik. As it stands at the moment Common Sense is prevailing in the Kwikrnu Drama, with the recent decision of the AG regarding the Sheriff of Williamson County. I suspect this common sense trend will continue through all of Leonards frivolous lawsuits. I have enjoyed reading your posts over last few days....keep up the good work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top