Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 179

Thread: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun Mea

  1. #61
    Don't Give a Rat's Ass
    SMTA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    OH
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    21,828

    Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    wrong-the place to start is not with the soldiers following orders but those who give the orders and the people sitting on the sidelines demanding that the soldiers berak down doors and confiscate weapons. I think those who constantly call for gun confiscation would be the first targets to start with if the SHTF
    They can't take what they can't find........

    Intelligence and craftiness will beat a government any day of the week.
    Greatness lies not in being strong, but in the right use of strength - Henry Ward Beecher
    Baby sister, I was born game and I intend to go out that way - Rooster Cogburn

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    Arms is a very specific word actually. It is the short term for armements or weapons. You could at the time the constitution was written quite litteraly own ANY weapon including cannons and full warships if you could afford them. The 2nd amendment is quite specific in saying the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It means no one can take your right to arm your self. My view on speach is is the same as on arms you can say what you like. The GOVERNMENT cant procecute or regulate it. A lot of other people see it that way. Personally I dont care anyhow.
    Ahhh, so that is your opinion, and not the opinion of the people in law enforcement. You could think you have the right to kill someone, and as long as you never do it you will never know any better. However, rights are an ideal until there is some divine force that can come down and enforce it. According to the government you don't have that right. Which really boils things down to might. Do you have the might to enforce your right? No, you don't. So your opinion is worth a hill of beans if they decide it is wrong.

    people talk of rights as if they are some sacred divine protected thing. It is all an idea, and you don't have any right to it. If they stop making guns no gun is going to pop out of the sky to fullfill your right to one. At least with speech or religion you can pull it out of this air, but not a gun.

    I am not telling you this to make you angree. I am telling you this because you are the people who have to make the argument for your ability to legally own firearms. You are the ones who are going to have to make an argument vs a lot of people who don't think you have some right to any weapon you want. So you have to convince them that this is something that should be around. All this rights talk doesn't mean a damned thing when you have dead toddlers on the TV for most people. So you had better come up with a better argument because it would seem certain people are hell bent on limiting your ability to own a gun legally. They don't seem to care one bit about what you feel should be the way.

  3. #63
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,573

    Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    If it is like speech then it can be regulated. As long as they let some people who are able to have guns then everything is fine then. Unless you are making the claim that they cannot regulate it and then I just have to say good luck with that. besides, the constitution says arms which refers to weapons. They did not say which ones. Since they were not specific it is clear they were not speaking of present firearms because they were not present back in the time it was written. Basically there is no right that specifically says you can have a gun. If you wish to invoke the supreme court's interpretation to mean you have the right to a firearm then you also have to accept the courts decision that regulation is somethuing the state can do in regards to guns.
    Are you kidding me? What do you suppose that "militia" preamble was referring to? Even "back then" the militia did not carry slingshots, bows or frying pans, they carried guns. The state can obvioulsy regulate only some Constitutional rights, and within very strict "least restrictive methods" for achieving a stated "compelling state interest".

    To assert that the SCOTUS would allow a tajing a class, passing a test and paying fee to allow the "right" to vote, since "low information" voters are not capable of "understanding the issues" and therefore cancel out the votes of "informed voters", placing them in danger of being led by morons is very unlikely to pass Constitutional muster.

    If the state could prove that requiring a CCW permit made the state safer, then they should also be compelled to make that class, and test more accessable, and lower the fee (i.e. subsidize its cost), not to charge each citizen $240 for simply keeping that "right". We all know that the real purpose of expensive CCW permits is to simply place that "right" out of reach of as many people as possible, thus they do not charge anywhere near that cost for the mere privilege to drive in that state.

    The SCOTUS allows the federal gov't to mandate "free" NICS background checks be perfomed, by all FFL dealers, for each gun sale yet allows the states to charge large fees, for a one time NICS check and a picture ID, for "CCW permits". That makes no sense at all.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #64
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,655

    Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

    Quote Originally Posted by RLN View Post
    So when does the first amendment guarantee the freedom of speech for an individual that does not consider the responsibilities and consequences of his speech? I mean we are not looking at a man that said something to the example of: "I and people like me are going to fight this politically, not only in my state but all the others too, right to the end. We are going to be calling law makers and sending letters to the people in Washington and start to talk to people all over this nation in public meetings and the media."

    No. He said killing people. Who? That most definitely bothered a lot of people, huh? It probably even bothered the person/office that signed their name to his gun permit.

    Take a look at what the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security had to say about Mr. Yeager: In a statement released Friday officials said they had suspended the handgun carry permit of James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response based on "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public".



    Take special note of what Mr. Gibbons said: "irresponsible; dangerous."

    Mr. Yeager might as well of stood up in a movie theater and shout "fire" causing a panic and stampede.
    Context is everything and although he used the phrase "start killing people" it was prefaced by "if this goes one inch further".

    Yeager was obviously - and rightly - pissed off about the likelihood of Obama doing by EO what he knows won't pass congress and that's a problem. Personally, I'd go so far as to suggest that if Obama overreaches on this gun control stuff it would be incumbent on the American people to get him out of that office by whatever means become necessary.

  5. #65
    Weekend Political Pundit
    Bob N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-17 @ 11:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,821

    Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    Arms is a very specific word actually. It is the short term for armements or weapons. You could at the time the constitution was written quite litteraly own ANY weapon including cannons and full warships if you could afford them. The 2nd amendment is quite specific in saying the the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It means no one can take your right to arm your self. My view on speach is is the same as on arms you can say what you like. The GOVERNMENT cant procecute or regulate it. A lot of other people see it that way. Personally I dont care anyhow.
    Really? How many licensed gun stores you know of that will sell you a machine gun or bazooka? The sell of firearms or armaments has been regulated now for quite a long while.
    "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Are you kidding me? What do you suppose that "militia" preamble was referring to? Even "back then" the militia did not carry slingshots, bows or frying pans, they carried guns. The state can obvioulsy regulate only some Constitutional rights, and within very strict "least restrictive methods" for achieving a stated "compelling state interest".
    If you are going to bring the militia part into it then we have to argue that background checks do not make a well trained militia at all. Clearly, if you want to use that part, they intended for people who were trained and had need for community protection to have guns. That is certainly not what we have today. That would go along the lines of local security guards and not some civilian who just thinks it is cool to own a gun. They did not say in order to make people happy they should be allowed to have guns.
    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    To assert that the SCOTUS would allow a tajing a class, passing a test and paying fee to allow the "right" to vote, since "low information" voters are not capable of "understanding the issues" and therefore cancel out the votes of "informed voters", placing them in danger of being led by morons is very unlikely to pass Constitutional muster.
    Again, good luck with all that i will see what happens on the other side. Not for nothing but the right was all positive obamacare was unconstitutional, and they were all positive the US was for Romney. You can preach all you want, in the end it comes down to the president and the legislature, and then you have a hope the supreme court kills it. None of those are a given despite you thinking they are clear.
    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    If the state could prove that requiring a CCW permit made the state safer, then they should also be compelled to make that class, and test more accessable, and lower the fee (i.e. subsidize its cost), not to charge each citizen $240 for simply keeping that "right". We all know that the real purpose of expensive CCW permits is to simply place that "right" out of reach of as many people as possible, thus they do not charge anywhere near that cost for the mere privilege to drive in that state.
    But there is no proof it makes the streets safer, and there is actually proof that the more guns there are on the streets the higher homicide and gun deaths you have. that is not safer. You cannot even make that proof.
    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The SCOTUS allows the federal gov't to mandate "free" NICS background checks be perfomed, by all FFL dealers, for each gun sale yet allows the states to charge large fees, for a one time NICS check and a picture ID, for "CCW permits". That makes no sense at all.
    I don't think they are listening to that argument anymore. I could be wrong in that. Perhaps they will decide that more restrictions and harder checks are not needed. Perhaps they won't ban certain classes of guns. They seem pretty fired up this time, and the gun nuts are really helping their case by being as insane as possible and making threats of violence.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    The darkside of the moon
    Last Seen
    05-24-14 @ 05:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,905
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    Context is everything and although he used the phrase "start killing people" it was prefaced by "if this goes one inch further".

    Yeager was obviously - and rightly - pissed off about the likelihood of Obama doing by EO what he knows won't pass congress and that's a problem. Personally, I'd go so far as to suggest that if Obama overreaches on this gun control stuff it would be incumbent on the American people to get him out of that office by whatever means become necessary.
    you better watch out, that sounds like a threat of assassination. What do you think our leaders are going to do when they see one of them shot by the angry mob? You would see a major lockdown at that point and you could kiss lots of your guns goodbye. I am really not thinking that they are going to say OMG they just shot the president to get what they want, lets give them more guns.

  8. #68
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,801

    Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

    James Yeager is borderline psychotic and a proven liar

    James Yeager, helping the "gun control" extremists

    and from WBIR TV in Knoxville
    West TN man loses handgun carry permit after making video threats
    Yeager runs Tactical Response, a firearms and tactical training school in Camden. He is not a Department of Safety and Homeland Security certified instructor, nor is his school department certified.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  9. #69
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

    Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    Context is everything and although he used the phrase "start killing people" it was prefaced by "if this goes one inch further".

    Yeager was obviously - and rightly - pissed off about the likelihood of Obama doing by EO what he knows won't pass congress and that's a problem. Personally, I'd go so far as to suggest that if Obama overreaches on this gun control stuff it would be incumbent on the American people to get him out of that office by whatever means become necessary.
    vague pap pandering to those all to ready to scream and demand but do little...

    "if it goes another inch" what does that mean? Requires more of the 40% of sales to have a back round check? Will there be blood in the streets over that?

    What in YOUR opinion is President Obama overreach? Say something with meat on the bones, not vague meaningless stuff.

    What do you mean with the rather cliche, 'by whatever means become necessary'???

    More rabble rousing pap, could mean a lot- most likely just hot air and stirring the stink pot.

    Context is everything, what do you think is that 'inch' and what do you mean by your cliche???

  10. #70
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,655

    Re: Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    you better watch out, that sounds like a threat of assassination. What do you think our leaders are going to do when they see one of them shot by the angry mob? You would see a major lockdown at that point and you could kiss lots of your guns goodbye. I am really not thinking that they are going to say OMG they just shot the president to get what they want, lets give them more guns.
    Let me be really, really clear on this....if the president, by executive order, makes an attempt to obviate the 2nd amendment or any of our other natural rights it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the American people to remove him from office. That can be done peaceably and it would be preferred to handle things that way but if he chooses not to go peaceably then that opens the door for a whole lot of other options.

Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •