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

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

head of joaquin said:

All the more reason to ban guns. If these hotheads are willing to kill people to keep their guns, then they are clearly violent lawless people who need to be identified and incarcerated. The best way is to ban guns. Then only the freaks like this guy will keep his gun and we can arrest him for illegal gun ownership, preventing another gun massacre.

Click to expand...

Why incarcerate? Do you honestly think it would teach them anything other than to hate your guts even more? How long would you incarcerate them for?

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

Bigfoot 88 said:

Why the outrage?

If somebody breaks into your home and takes your posessitions, violence has been initiated against you and you have every right to defend your family and property.

Click to expand...

Naturally, proposing violence against your fellow citizens and the government itself over nothing more than a suggestion that doesn't tickle one's fancy should concern just about everyone with marbles intact.

Has anyone suggested otherwise? Better yet, is the actual act of breaking in and seizing property actually on the table here?

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

Dwight said:

To what, be a violence prone jackass? Well yes, up to a point.

Even “fundamental enumerated rights” are not unlimited, particularly when they start bumping into each other.

P.S. If you want the fuller access to the 2nd Amendment, sign up for the National Guard.

Click to expand...

given the national guard can be federalized with one signature of the president, your claim is rather stupid

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

sangha said:

The answer is , all the tough talkers plan to shoot the soldiers who come to take their weapons away. Of course, the end result of that is that those soldiers will transform them into a cloud of blood, but they know there's no consequence for talking tough.

Click to expand...

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

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

tererun said:

Really what you are doing is working yourself up into a frenzy and trying to rationalize your ideas for violent actions. I am telling you that this is the common reaction for someone who is excited and worried, but it is also the worst way to go about things. The only thing shooting is going to do is prove gun owners are irrational and prone to freaking out and shooting. I am telling you that your message will not be received as what you are intending it to be, and the path is actually quite wrong. Slow down and think about things. You are backing an idea that shooting people is a way to convince people that gun owners can be safe and level headed.

Click to expand...

Its NEVER been about saftey or levelheadedness. Its about rights. Its about lines you just dont cross without repercusion. Gun ownners dont feel the NEED to convince anyone of anything. As far as they are concerned its an INALEINABLE right just exactly like free speach or freedom of religion.

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

Ray410 said:

the OP must be throughly disappointed at the sounds of applause in the background.

Click to expand...

I surely am, not necessarily due to the lack of outrage, but because of the relative acceptance of crackpots who seem to have annointed themselves both legal experts and super soldiers in one fell swoop.

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

PirateMk1 said:

Its NEVER been about saftey or levelheadedness. Its about rights. Its about lines you just dont cross without repercusion. Gun ownners dont feel the NEED to convince anyone of anything. As far as they are concerned its an INALEINABLE right just exactly like free speach or freedom of religion.

Click to expand...

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.

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

VanceMack said:

We have 240+ years of precedence that says your interpretations are pure bull****. But I will accept there is a LEGAL recourse for those that seek to take firearms from the citizens of the United States. It involves amending the Constitution. Until you do that, when you have elected representatives stating that they will seize weapons, by force if necessary, you have elected representatives that are advocating for the violation of the Constitutional rights of law abiding US citizens. And if anyone is such a moron that they would not only tolerate the abandonment of the constitutional rights of citizens but in fact cheer them on while encouraging the creation of a police state because it suits their ideological fancy...well...that speaks volumes for those types as well.

Click to expand...

Don't know what you are talking about, but not unexpected as so few seem to know real history, preferring only the version that supports their personal beliefs.

That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

that was from a court decision back in 1842

Then we have a decision handed down in 1820 that has a bit to say about that whole "well regulated militia" bit, which most unlimited gun advocates either ignore or interpret in some bizarre manner

The power of Congress over the militia ''being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . The power of the state government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Constitution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government . . .''

Click to expand...

and what is the "militia"? The National Defense Act of 1916 stated:

''militia of the United States . . . all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,''

Click to expand...

So those who claim the right to keep and bear arms was intended by the Founders as a means of protesting or overthrowing a tyrannical federal government - ye know not whereof ye speak.

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

tererun said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Lutherf said:

Well, it looks like Tennessee has yanked Mr. Yeager's permit.

West TN man loses handgun carry permit after making video threats | wbir.com

Now, along with the impending gutting of the 2nd amendment it seems that the 1st is getting the same treatment.

Click to expand...

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".

"The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public's safety. Mr. Yeager's comments were irresponsible, dangerous, and deserved our immediate attention. Due to our concern, as well as that of law enforcement, his handgun permit was suspended immediately. We have notified Mr. Yeager about the suspension today via e-mail. He will receive an official notification of his suspension through the mail," Commissioner Bill Gibbons said.

Click to expand...

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.

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

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

They can't take what they can't find........

Intelligence and craftiness will beat a government any day of the week.

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

PirateMk1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

tererun said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

RLN said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

PirateMk1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

ttwtt78640 said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

ttwtt78640 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ttwtt78640 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ttwtt78640 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Lutherf said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Lutherf said:

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.

Click to expand...

vague pap pandering to those all to ready to scream and demand but do little... :roll:

"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???

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

tererun said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Goshin said:

He's a hothead, but I'm hearing a lot of similar talk from a lot of other gun owners also... people need to realize that if they push too far on this issue there really will be violence... possibly a lot of it.

Click to expand...

Look Goshin, I generally agree with you on gun control, and in fact I am quite a bit to the right of you when it comes to gun control issues. Compared to me you are a left-winger on gun regulation.

BUT you are simply spouting nonsense. Threats of violence in the face of stricter gun control are not the answer. It is despicable to indulge in this sort of thing.

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

Lutherf said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is your choice, but i am pretty sure the secret service, police, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies are not going to see it that way. The way I see it is that the ban or regulations will come around. there will be a lot of complaining and threatening. There will be some legal challenges, and perhaps some people might protest. There will be a few loonies who pop and get shot or arrested for their troubles, and in the end the world will go on and america will still be here minus a couple of loonies and some guns.

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

You don't see the left pushing its socialist agenda so far that some will begin to plot against this government? If they
go too far in their efforts to "ban guns" I can see a lot of people going off the deep end. I don't think the government
will go that far - but I suspect some states will come very close. Illinois for one.

Guy Incognito said:

Look Goshin, I generally agree with you on gun control, and in fact I am quite a bit to the right of you when it comes to gun control issues. Compared to me you are a left-winger on gun regulation.

BUT you are simply spouting nonsense. Threats of violence in the face of stricter gun control are not the answer. It is despicable to indulge in this sort of thing.

Click to expand...

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

Lutherf said:

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.

Click to expand...

The argument then comes down to whether or not a majority of Americans do or don't think a specific action undertaken by the President is "an attempt to obviate the 2nd amendment"

What happens then? What if 23% of Americans believe as you do but the rest of the citizenry thinks your faction is a bunch of "delusional whackjobs"? What do you do then?

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

notquiteright said:

vague pap pandering to those all to ready to scream and demand but do little... :roll:

"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???

Click to expand...

What's that "one more inch"?

Assigning a $100 fee for every NICS check.
Limiting the number of NICS checks an FFL can make in a given period of time.
Outlawing the transfer of firearms between private owners.
Outlawing common firearms accessories such as 30 round magazines for AR's while allowing them for state use.
Outlawing semi-automatic firearms.
National registration of firearms.

In short, anything which serves to infringe upon the rights of lawful private citizens to properly maintain the ability to defend themselves from known and common threats.