Unhinged Tactical Response CEO threatens to ‘start killing people’ over Obama’s gun control

[Tearloch7]

Breaking news .. or broken .. Yeager, the "unhinged" nutcase who is the cause of this thread, has had his handgun permit revoked .. I guess they are awaiting his arrival with gun in hand so they can shoot him down .. or do you think he is maybe hiding in his basement stroking his AR-15? .. this should be enough to trigger a violent response .. c'mon James .. dinna disappoint yer fans, boy ..

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/tennessee_suspends_james_yeagers_handgun_carry_permit/singleton/

[DeNiro]

I have a passion for guns? Do you know how many I own? You, like many others, have confused a non gun owner for being a gun nut. That's pretty hilarious.

And about "thats what laws are", the second amendment is law. It's amongst one of the top and most important laws of the land by being in the Constitution. I guess it isn't important though when it doesn't agree with you.

Another reason I don't bother re-answering the question for you, on top of you pretending you want answers, is that it's impossible to take seriously people who use hyperbole and talk about rocket launchers virtually no one actually has or uses, despite there being few to no restrictions throughout the US. This is much like the hyperbole used in the US to suggest that letting gays marry will result in people marrying their dogs or other pets. Unsubstantiated.

[Mr. Ambien]

Well you seem pretty passionate about defending the right to own them, which is what I meant.

The second ammendment is a law, yes. And like all laws they can be updated and made more appropriate for today's society. For example, the first ammendment gives you the right to freedom of speech. However certain aspects needed to be added to prevent extreme hate speech in order to protect minorities. That's what modern societies do in order to keep evolving.

Jumping from an assault rifle, which is used for military combat, to an RPG, really isn't that much of a hyperbole. I find it just as ridiculous for a person to defend themselves with an assualt rifle as it is to defend themselves with an RPG. Both are military weapons, and have no use for regualr citizens.

It seems to me like people who are pro assault weapons think that their rights trump the rights of everyone else in society. Even if it's those people's basic right for safety.

[Wetcoaster]

I have a passion for guns? Do you know how many I own? You, like many others, have confused a non gun owner for being a gun nut. That's pretty hilarious.

And about "thats what laws are", the second amendment is law. It's amongst one of the top and most important laws of the land by being in the Constitution. I guess it isn't important though when it doesn't agree with you.

Another reason I don't bother re-answering the question for you, on top of you pretending you want answers, is that it's impossible to take seriously people who use hyperbole and talk about rocket launchers virtually no one actually has or uses, despite there being few to no restrictions throughout the US. This is much like the hyperbole used in the US to suggest that letting gays marry will result in people marrying their dogs or other pets. Unsubstantiated.

[Bertuzzi Babe]

Betcha if we stopped feeding the troll he'd starve, just sayin'.........

Aren't we tired of being troll fodder yet? Using deliberate obtuseness to suck folks in is the troll's stock in trade.

[Wetcoaster]

Betcha if we stopped feeding the troll he'd starve, just sayin'.........

Aren't we tired of being troll fodder yet?

[SterlingArcher]

It's a bs threat. He'll get capped soon as he attempts to go on a killing spree. If he doesn't want to live without his assault rifle he might aswell commit suicide.

[Mr. Ambien]

In Heller five SCOTUS justices have one interpretation on the Second Amendment while four ascribe to a completely different interpretation - and the majority of 5 wins the argument over the minority of 4 but that does not mean the minority did not have a cogent well-reasoned position - in fact IMHO it was much more cogent and well-reasoned.

As far as the sorts of arguments about "dangerous and unusual weapons" not in common use (such as rocket launchers) and the actual inability of citizens to in fact to oppose a modern US army that would have it out-gunned... that was a matter raised by the majority in Heller.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

...

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

[Wetcoaster]

This is why I re-assert, to which you throw a fit about how often opinion changes historically (only to turn around and say this is a major shift), that all it takes is a shift of a few justices (particularly a few like Thomas or Kennedy) and the interpretation of Heller would change completely in terms of the majority that matters. Guaranteed if Obama can get one or two of his own justices in, Heller will be reversed.

[Mr. Ambien]

I disagree with that.

[Tearloch7]

Where did like-minded justices stand on Heller? How much credence do they give stare decisis? You really think Obama justices would stay with the majority on Heller? Just because of historical "precedent"? You do realise the irony of this right?

In fact, justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, etc. have blatantly criticised stare decisis when it disagrees with their progressive agenda, and employ stare decisis when it agrees.

The judicial branch is blatantly as politicised as the other two. There is absolutely no reason to believe Heller will stand when the court turns liberal.

[Electro Rock]

Instead of hiding in the woods and stockpiling guns, why not speak out peacefully against some of the actions of the US government against it's own citizens. Americans' rights are slowly being stripped away, and it's a shame there's no Occupy style movement to bring mass attention to it.

[Electro Rock]

Until the gun-rights defenders can explain how their semi-auto's, with 100 shot magazines, are going to stop the drone strike that takes out their house, they are 'urinating into a Chinook' .. it feels good til it cools off, apparently ..

[inane]

Let's put it this way, much of, if not the majority of the U.S. military, is not considered "politically reliable" in certain quarters, that's why there was talk of establishing a Civilian National Security Force, that's just as strong, just as powerful, just as well funded as the U.S. Military.

[Mr. Ambien]

LOL as well funded? How on earth would you do that?

I'm really surprised at how many people are so afraid of tyrrany in the US. I knew there were some crazies, but man, it is a lot more rampant than I thought...

[Electro Rock]

LOL as well funded? How on earth would you do that?

I'm really surprised at how many people are so afraid of tyrrany in the US. I knew there were some crazies, but man, it is a lot more rampant than I thought...

[Tearloch7]

Ask Obama...

[inane]

You obviously have no idea how often rights are trampled upon or suspended in the US.

Following tragedy is obviously the most expedient time to remove them.

People who protect the second amendment fervently to me are no different than those who protect the first. Especially when they want to protect both. Somehow you must feel that rights are indefinitely safe if kept in government's hands? I wonder what your historical basis for this thought process is.

[inane]

Ask Obama...

[Lancaster]

Easier to protect the First Amendment when you have the Second Amendment.

Of course, having a gun doesn't mean the government can't just take you out, but if 10% of the population have guns, that's more folks than the entire armed forces of the USA.

Back to the topic of the CEO.... he's the type of people who shouldn't have guns.... erratic and unstable.