The CEO of a company that teaches people how to use guns has posted a ranting video online in which he claims he will ‘start killing people’ if President Obama uses his executive powers to introduce tighter gun controls.
James Yeager runs Tactical Response, a Tennessee company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills. In a video posted on YouTube and Facebook, Yeager describes President Obama as a ‘dictator’ and claims that tighter gun control measures will result in ‘civil war.’
The video is Yeager’s angry response to Vice President Joe Biden’s comment on Wednesday that President Obama might use executive action if Congress takes no action on gun violence in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.
If this is a person trying to convince me that he is sane and should be carrying any type of weapon, he sure is going about it the wrong way. I wouldn’t trust this A-hole with a butter knife.
See this guy in all his glory by clicking the blue text.
I don’t usually use Brit media but the video was clearer than on my usual sites.
This nut shouldn’t pass a psych exam if one were needed to own a gun.
I couldn’t access your links but found the video through a google search.
I fixed the link. Thanks.
Scarey that people like this want to be in charge of who should carry weapons capable of mass destruction.
Just to let you know…this guy is considered a joke among the gun bloggers. He is routinely made fun of.
He has since “retracted” his statements while, at the same time, saying he hasn’t.
Here’s the general reaction to this tool.
http://www.saysuncle.com/2013/01/11/the-yeager-saga/
And this guy routinely makes fun of him. Scroll down to enjoy.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/
He’s an unsafe clown with fanboys. He is continuously being criticized by us to the point of apoplectic rants on youtube.
The problem for you is, he espouses the same thing you do. Therefore you have to own him. People hear him and Jones and assume that is the standard.
Do you want either of those people to have unlimited access to weapons? I sure don’t.
We don’t have to own him. He may espouse some of the things I say, to which I can agree or not, as I decide. I can also denounce him for being an idiot. Otherwise, your proclamations over the years of being an independent must be ignored and I can state that you have to own all the stupid stuff that comes from the Democrats.
You keep saying “unlimited access” as if it means something.
No one has unlimited access to weaponry. I do support his and Jone’s 2nd amendment rights as long as they are lawful. Apparently ol’ Yeager there, broke some TN law and lost his carry permit because of his rants. Actions have consequences. It was a weak bust.
@Cargo
So what weaponry should we not have access to? i will ask again.
hmmmm…we certainly interpret differently.
Crimes are on the books that infringe upon people rights regardless of what their crime was.
I stated it elsewhere. I support the right of Americans to keep and bear the same arms as that carried by the police, at the very least, and the infantry. The compromise limiting that to semi-auto is not really a burden. That would be modern pistols and rifles. Access to greater force is already legal, but more tightly controlled. The Nat’l Firearms of 34 and the Gun Control Act of 68 were limiting. MOST Americans are satisfied with keeping a “quarter of their cake.”
But really, “shall not be infringed” is really pretty clear.
Any weapon that has an area affect could be and is controlled. I think that the reality is such that all laws concerning possession could be dissolved tomorrow and nothing would change. Crimes that involve the misuse of guns, ie murder, etc, would still be on the books.
Basically status quo.
This discussion just hasd me horribly depressed. I know so many people who have unlimited access (yes it means something) to weapons who really shouldn’t have it.
Why do I get to decide? I don’t, only in my own mind. I believe nearly everyone has a right to bear arms but not all arms.
I am not so sure people who have paid their time to society after committing felonies should be restricted from guns. that would be my interpretation of infringed–not open up the arsenol and let everyone have one of each weapon.
The very thought makes me sick.
Again, you state unlimited access. What do YOU mean by that? Unlimited access isn’t allowed. People are limited by law to semi-auto, or less according to the state that has jurisdiction.
IF you know people that shouldn’t have guns…do you mean legally, or by your opinion, are incompetent, or have bad judgement? No one has “unlimited” access.
Personally, my thought is that once the sentence is served, all rights should be returned. If you are too dangerous to be around guns….then you should not be in public.
@Cargosquid
Whatever is manufactured and it out there…..
Why hold back? I know of people who would buy stuff on the black market if it isn’t a legal sale.
Why not start by telling us what you cannot buy…not brands/models but what it does.
I believe I asked the question –so you want either of these people to have unlimited access to weapons. (meaning Jones and yeager)
I don’t want them to be able to buy guns. They are effen nuts.
Let’s talk about this game of cat and mouse. Because I don’t know the names of certain weapons because I am not interested in weapons in particular, I am being squeezed out of the conversation. I see it being done before my very eyes.
Let’s start withyour assumption that you should be able to own anything the military owns or the police force owns. If you do then everyone else does.
I totally disagree with every ounce of my being. I believe there are definitely civilian restrictions. I don’t live n a banana republic and don’t believe I have to arm myself against my government.
As I said, the compromise is that civilians have semi auto rifles. One pull of the trigger fires one shot.
That is what 99% of police use. Along with bolt action rifles and shotguns.
That is what we have now. While you don’t believe that you have to arm against the gov’t, and I don’t believe that we have to right now…who is to say what the future holds. It would be irresponsible to preempt the rights of future citizens by restricting this right to keep and bear arms now for what seems to be increased security. Ben Franklin had a quote about that.
Jones has broken no laws that I know of. Yeager apparently had his carry permit revoked for his words on the net. Neither of them are felons, and so have the same rights as you do. All are equal before the law. Your desire seems to be to turn the RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms into a privilege allowed by the gov’t. Because you don’t like how they act or speak, you want to revoke basic rights from them.
“Why not start by telling us what you cannot buy…not brands/models but what it does.”
Here is what civilians can buy, to the best of my knowledge.
Rifles: single shot, lever action, semi auto
Pistols: revolvers, semi auto
shotguns, single shot, pump, semi auto
Machine guns, submachine guns and assault rifles: all automatic weapons. Strictly controlled but available if made prior to 1986.
Cannons: Civil war, WWI, WWII. I’ve seen privately own WWII anti-tank guns.
Tanks: see Tank Farm
Explosives: with licenses.
Assault rifles made after 1986 are not legal.
Missiles are not legal.
Machine guns (crew served) built after 1986 are not legal.
Armed drones are illegal.
Armed aircraft are illegal.
Military explosive weapons, ie., grenades, claymores, etc are not legal.
Artillery is not legal.
If you feel squeezed out due to a lack of knowledge of terminology, we can agree that YOUR use of “assault weapon” is not the same as the rest of the gun control groups. If you are thinking about semiauto AR type rifles that is. You can also use AR for that type.
I’m sorry if you feel this way. You ARE jumping into a long fought political war, filled with its own words, rules, and knowledge base. I’ve been involved with it for as long as I’ve been on the internet….probably 10 years. Many of the laws that are currently enacted or being advanced or fought sometimes revolve around the definitions of words, minute differences in weapons, meanings, etc. This results in the silly laws like those found in DC that makes David Gregory an unarrested criminal because he possessed a metal box with a spring in it. The ATF has similar rules, definitions and semantics. THESE are considered firearms by the ATF: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ItemListing.aspx?catid=2147
Be aware that what you see is nothing more than trigger action of part of a gun.
Also, be aware that it is not illegal to MAKE your own gun. I’ve seen a pictorial where a man used nothing more than a shovel and a commercially purchased rifle barrel to make a semi auto AK47, in his garage. http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!
I hope this is what you meant by asking me what can’t be bought. I thought I’d just cover the whole thing.
That’s pretty comprehesive. Thank you.
Now help me out here. My understanding is a weapon is automatic if you pull the trigger once and the magazine or belt is emptied or until you release the trigger.
Semi automatic is having to press the trigger for each round fired, even though you can do it until the magazine is empty if you want.
Am I correct?
Again..about Yeager and gun bloggers’ opinions of this idiot.
http://www.weerdworld.com/2013/on-james-yeagers-carry-permit/
I agree. If he was dangerous enough to take his carry permit, arrest him. Taking his carry permit still allows him to go armed. He owns a “tactical” shooting school. You think that he might have a few guns. And if open carry is allowed, he can still do that.
Taking his permit was just showboating.
Forget open carry or anything else.
I heard the threat me made. I tend to take people at their word unless given a reason to think otherwise. He issued a threat. He should be jailed.
@Moon-howler
That’s the point. But all that they did was revoke his concealed carry permit. If he’s a danger, arrest him. If not…leave him be. They should stop the political grandstanding.
@Moon-howler
Yes…. and by that definition, a double action revolver is also semi-automatic, because you don’t have to cock the hammer for each shot. You can pull the trigger, the cylinder will advance, and the hammer will fall on the next round, firing the gun.