BREAKING: James Yeager’s CCW License Revoked, David Gregory Walks

Beclowning himself by threatening to kill anyone who called him a coward to his face (as long as they sign the requisite liability release first) wasn’t enough to attract any serious attention to James Yeager beyond the gun community. Declaring [via YouTube] that he’d start shooting people if the Obama Administration pursued civilian disarmament via executive order was the proverbial camel’s back-breaking straw. After having their radar pinged by the fact that Mr. Yeager claimed to possess a TN Department Of Safety Certified Firearms Instructor certificate (which doesn’t exist), the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security has pulled Yeager’s carry permit. Nashville’s newschannel5.com reports they did so based on “material likelihood of risk of harm to the public.” As Commissioner Bill Gibbons put it . . .

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.

This is hardly the first time he’s shot his mouth off, though perhaps never before in quite so threatening a manner. Even he realized he’d probably stepped over the line and tried to walk the the whole thing back – a little — in a subsequent YouTube release. Of course, his advocacy of illegal concealed carry may have helped sway the department’s decision.

From the Volunteer State’s department of pre-crime to the District of Colombia’s “see no evil” police and [non] prosecution . . .

Prosecutors in our nation’s capital have just announced that David Gregory—the NBC News Meet the Press host who waved a 30-round magazine (illegal in D.C.) around the set like it was just an empty metal box—is getting off scott free. According to a statement by the city’s office of Attorney General . . . .

…criminal charges wouldn’t serve the public’s best interests even though possession of the magazine — capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition — was clearly against the law. In a letter to NBC’s lawyer, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan also said he recognized that the device was intended as a prop to provoke public discussion on gun control following the Connecticut school massacre.

The DC Attorney General’s office ‘splained their reasoning this way:

Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public.

There seems to be some dispute whether the DC Police gave Mr. Gregory permission to brandish the assault clip on national television. Whatever. His actions were clearly against District law. Gregory had a point to illustrate and it was all for the good of the people, don’t you see. Keep that in mind when the government argues that your “high capacity” magazines are a threat to public safety.

186 Responses to BREAKING: James Yeager’s CCW License Revoked, David Gregory Walks

  1. avatarRoss says:

    I believe James is a police officer also, so not having a CCW isn’t going to bother him too much.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      That is possibly the single most frightening thing I have read all day.

      • avatarRoss says:

        I really don’t have any problems with Yeager, has always been friendly to me when I’ve run into him at SHOT, NRA Convention etc and I’m a nobody, but he still takes time to chat.

        • avatarWiebelhaus says:

          yep, same here, Yeager is good people, they are picking on him because they don’t like dissent.

        • avatar2Wheels says:

          Yeager is good people? Y’all are kidding right?

          He’s a hotheaded moron who gets all his attention by acting as… you guessed it… a hotheaded moron!

        • avatarRoss says:

          Yeager is good people? Y’all are kidding right?

          All I’m saying is every time I’ve met him he’s been a nice guy.

        • avatarMace says:

          I really like Mr. Yeager and believe him to be a responsible patriot.

        • avatar2Wheels says:

          He’s a man who shouldn’t be allowed to teach anyone anything related to firearms. Have you paid any attention to his youtube exploits?

          There are many more respectable firearms instructors out there, no need to follow Mr. “I’ll break your back” Yeager.

        • avatarPaul W. says:

          I’m not sure I want a cop that threatens to kill people who disagree with him or insult him.

      • avatar.9mm says:

        + 1000

        • avatarJosef says:

          Paul, you hit the nail right on the head.

          This is America. Not fascist Germany. Yeagers is another chest pumping wannabe fascist. He can burn in hell with the rest of the Gestapo.

        • avatarHogger129 says:

          Yeager is hot headed, sure, and probably speaks before thinking, but he sure isn’t a fascist, or a coward, or any of the other names people call him. He spoke his mind. If people have a problem with it, they can choose to ignore it.

      • avatarYou Can't Fix Stupid says:

        This man should have known better as a solder & police officer. I’m thinking a mental disorder, PTSD? He also lied about a license to instruct. Sometimes these guys think their above the law. This thing about there gonna take my guns is not the truth add Alex Jones to the mix and these people seem mentally ill. One thing I do know is Homeland Security is watching especially website that are public. I was told about it yesterday afternoon. The amount of defiant people flipping out in videos and comments. Come on people you should no better when you make threats & mentioning a army assembled! Come on….think

        • avatarDoug says:

          He was never a soldier, marine, airman, sailor, or anything else. He was never a member of the military.

          He’s a hotheaded wanna-be that thinks he’s tough shit because he did undercover work in Podunk, TN. Oh and he was on a SWAT team and never did an operation with it. His only time being in combat, he ran and hid in a ditch while mortally wounded men fought back and the ones that weren’t wounded were trying to tend to the wounded. He only came out of hiding after the fighting was over.

          He teaches his students – I’m not making this up – to tap-rack-bang through ALL pistol malfunctions and stoppages, including being out of ammo. You can find Youtube videos of him forcing his students to rap-rack-bang their way from a stovepipe into a double feed, and there is video of Tex Grubner and a whole line of students tap-rack-banging empty guns over and over because Jimmy Yeager is teaching them to.

          It takes them like 10 seconds to get ammo in their guns because they’re yanking on the slides and slapping the butts of the guns before they realize they’ve gone dry.

          He’s just another fraud that actually believes his own hype.

        • avatarHogger129 says:

          He was never a soldier. From what I gather, he was a cop and did some jobs for a security contractor in Iraq.

          To the post above me, he didn’t ‘run away and hide in a ditch.’

          He got to cover when he had the opportunity and tried to return fire. The video of it in its entirety is up on YouTube so you can see for yourself.

    • avatarInBox485 says:

      I don’t think he put in enough time to be considered a retired officer.

      • avatarRoss says:

        Not retired, I believe he keeps his LEO certification up.

        • avatarCG-23 Sailor says:

          Doesn’t matter if he keeps “His Certifications up”.

          Unless his licence is Held by an authorized Law Enforcement Department, He is not a LEO.

          For example, here in Texas, You can have your TCLEOSE Certificate and License saying you are authorized to be a Texas Peace Officer, but unless a Police Department, Sheriff’s Office, or some other Law Enforcement agency Holds your License as an Employee, you are NOT a Peace Officer.

          When you quit a Department to go to another department, Between your quitting and the new department picking up your license, you stop being a Police Officer. You’re still certified to be one, but you’re not one.

        • avatar16V says:

          POST certified v. actually employed (even if only as volunteer auxiliary) are two wholly different types of status.

        • avatarnobody important says:

          Actually, a “police officer” and “peace officer” are NOT the same thing. Police officer is just an employee of a Department, that is why DOGS and HORSES can be “police officers”.

          Before you come here spouting off like you know something, you should actually know something.

        • avatarCG-23 Sailor says:

          “Before you come here spouting off like you know something, you should actually know something.”

          Advice you should well heed.

          A Police Officer IS a Peace Officer, though a Peace Officer is not necessarily a Police Officer.

          It’s like saying an Apple is a Fruit, but not all Fruits are Apples. Some are Oranges.

          Peace Officer is like Fruit. Whereas a Police Officer is a specific kind of Peace Officer (the Apple) Other Peace Officers are Sheriff’s deputies (Oranges) and many other kinds as well.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      How much you want to bet in the next week he has a closed door session with them and gets it re-instated after a little begging and saying he is really sorry.

    • avatarmatt says:

      James used to be the Chief of Police for a small (pop 500) town. He was fired when he tried to form a SWAT team.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50429293/#.UPA1IPLC_IA

      • avatarJosef says:

        This guy is a nut and exactly the kind of person who is going to get guntrol passed. I can’t help but think he’s working for the other side. He needs to be locked up in a psych center as fast as they can get a straight jacket on him.

      • avatarCurzen says:

        holy shit. seriously? SWAT team for 500 people? that must be one of the worst proposals for burning tax money I’ve seen in a while.

        • avatarmatt says:

          Just like most LEOs, James was a welfare queen and wanted the tax payer to foot the bill for his toys.

          Also how many cops would you need to form a SWAT team? Here in Chicago we have 1 cop for every 281.99 people. If we were to extrapolate that to James’s city, they have 2 cops including James. So would it be a SWAT team of 2, or would they have to increase the department by 10x or 20x?

        • avatarJosef says:

          When it comes to the maniacs and crazy people, it’s hard to top a police officer.

        • avatarWilliam says:

          Well, it was him and 499 crystal meth cookers.

      • avatarJerryboy says:

        i think in this instance his plan was SWAT Team = local Militia. which really isn’t a bad idea, when you think about it.

        • avatarmatt says:

          I doubt it. He was trying to be one of the government storm troopers who would shoot your dog if it looked at him funny.

        • avatarJosef says:

          Yeah Jerry, I think there *is* something bad about a local militia group.

        • avatarJose says:

          Matt why lie about the number of cops in chicago?

        • avatarmatt says:

          lol wut?

          While repeated requests to McCarthy for employee counts were never given to elected officials, the public, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) or the press, he did state in his new hire announcement that he wants to maintain 12,500 sworn employees which include 9,600 officers…Since there is no 2011 Police Department Annual Report available as yet, only the previous three years are officially available. They list the Sworn/Exempt personnel counts… 2010 — 12,244.
          http://oururbantimes.com/news/officer-count-and-crime-stats-chicago-police-department-shell-games

          Seeing as the number of sworn employees in 2010 is similar to what he said he wanted for 2012, it would be reasonable to assume there are aprox. 9,600 CPD police officers.

    • avatarDavid Nash says:

      He is not a cop, and the department he was the chief of was a 2 man show – the day shift cop was the chief, and the other was on nights (except on wendsdays when the night time cop rode the garbage truck)… My ex brother in law was the night cop…

    • avatarP says:

      He is no longer a police officer. Not because of this, but because his full-time job is his firearm-related company.

    • avatarrdsii64 says:

      He isn’t a Police officer anymore. Besides, he strikes me as a person would would carry anyway, CCW or no CCW. While I am a firm believer in our 2nd Amendment rights, Mr. Yeager isn’t the best standard bearer or our cause.

  2. avatarRacer X says:

    He has no one but himself to blame, however I seriously doubt that he’ll see it that way. At the very least he showed irresponsibility at the highest level.

    • avatarpk in AZ says:

      You can say the same thing about what the asshat gregory did…

      And if he didn’t “know” what he did was against the law, you know the saying “ignorance of the law is no excuse”.

      • avatarRacer X says:

        Yeah, but the community pushed the Gregory thing the wrong way. Instead of insisting that Gregory be punished because of the law we should have tried to establish a petition to clear him on the grounds that the law was wrong. Punishing Gregory only solidifies that the law is correct.

        • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

          As weird as that sounds it actually makes a little sense, but unfortunately if it had been you or I on that set waving it around we would have been promptly arrested.

        • avatarRacer X says:

          True, but wouldn’t you have died to see his face when the NRA offered to provide a legal team to defend him. I think I would have wet my pants.

        • avatarFingersoup says:

          @Racer X No, it holds them to the very standards they are trying to use against us. Legitimate or not, the law is there because of people like him.

          Also, he knew it was wrong because he asked before he did it and they told him it was illegal: “A Metropolitan Police Department employee advised the network showing it on the broadcast would violate D.C. law. “There was no contrary advice from any federal official””..

          (Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/no-gun-magazine-charges-for-david-gregory-86079.html)

  3. avatarpk in AZ says:

    Can you say HYPOCRITICAL?

    • avatarMr Pierogie says:

      As much as I despise Yeager’s general stupidity and tough-guy-wanna-be attitude, is it fair that he’s being punished while Gregory is not? Yeager made an incredibly irresponsible statement, but to be fair he didn’t threaten any specific persons. Gregory, on the other hand, was in possession of an illegal magazine – something that would incur a fine and / or jail time for any one of us (and possibly it would prevent us from owning a firearm in the future). Hypocrisy indeed.

      • avatarmatt says:

        Yeager used to be the Chief of Police for a small town. I would assume a LEO would know the law better than a reporter.

        • avatarMr Pierogie says:

          Ok, but NBC were told by the police that even possessing that mag would be illegal. They could have used a prop, but didn’t. They were informed of the law and broke it anyway (a stupid law, yes). Did they do it because they knew all along that they could get away with it by citing the 1A right? Well then why can’t Yeager do the same here? He made a threatening statement, yes, but against whom specifically? How does this compare to a CNN video posted on TTAG recently where Bissinger suggests that Piers Morgan shoot Alex Jones? Yeager’s got nobody to blame but himself, and the same can be said about Gregory. And yet only one of them is being punished.

  4. avatarchewcudda says:

    not a fan of yeager but what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    can’t have freedom of speech without freedom for everybody.

  5. avatarLLARMS says:

    And just like the thread on AR15.com I’m sure this comment section is going to reveal a mass of hypocrites.

    - D

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      How so?

    • avatarmatt says:

      So how is that abomination of a hand guard coming along?

      • avatarMr Pierogie says:

        Ouch. But yeah, it seems like ages since I first heard about it, still nothing. What’s the advantage to it anyway?

        • avatarmatt says:

          It reduces recoil. But I said mounting 15lbs of lead on a pair of ARMS levers would be just as effective, easily removable, and cost 1/10th the price. He then released pics of a second version with computer fans which would quickly seize up due to fouling.

  6. avatarAPBTFan says:

    Not in the least surprised on both counts.

    “the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public”

    So by that token if I was to temporarily display one at a pro-gun rally with the intent to inform the public that there’s nothing evil about AR mags I would have been given the same treatment right?

  7. avatartjlarson2k says:

    So… the message being sent to the public regarding David Gregory is:
    It’s ok to actually break the law on television so long as the “intent was to promote the First Amendment” and no threats were being made (aside from the threat of misinformation and stupidity).

    And the message behind James Yeager’s CCW retraction is:
    It’s not ok to “mouth off” or make a “death threat” in general on the internet while exercising (aka promoting) your First Amendment rights.

    Interesting.

    So does this mean every person that “mouths off” on xbox live or on the internet in general about killing other players will get their CCW permits cancelled?

    But you can actually break the law if you work for NBC in the name of journalism and say it was “promoting the First Amendment”.

    Hmm. Something doesn’t add up here.

    • avatar2nd Amendment says:

      +100

    • avatarYou're All Idiots says:

      Are you insane or just willfully ignorant? The First Amendment does NOT allow you to make death threats. Making death threats is ILLEGAL.

      • avatarMatt in SD says:

        As much as I roll my eyes at the absurdity that is James Yeager and although his words were poorly chosen at best, certainly inflammatory and quite scary at worst, he simply didn’t make a specific enough threat to fall outside the protection of the 1st amendment. Many courts stipulate that there must be a clear target or targets. However, as in Watts v. U.S., a specific threat can be named (President Johnson in this case) and still be afforded protection in the context of a political hyperbole. What Mr. Yeager has done, while disgusting, named no specific target and was certainly in a protected context, as ruled by SCOTUS in Watts.

        Other than that, Yeager can FOAD.

        • avatarPaul W. says:

          agreed. While I’m really disconcerted that someone displaying that poor of judgement skills was a damn cop, it wasn’t grounds to yank a CC permit.

        • avatarDoug says:

          “I’m going to start killing people” I know I certainly wouldn’t get away with this. Us normal folk would probably be brought up on terrorism charges if we threatened to start killing people over politics.

      • avatartjlarson2k says:

        Who, exactly did he threaten?

        Go on Xbox Live sometime. Death threats aplenty and I have yet to hear of anyone having their Xbox account revoked, much less legal action taken against them because of it.

        People also make death threats all the time in traffic. Ever heard someone having an episode of road rage? Then you’ve heard all sorts of death threats and thoughts expressed towards other drivers. Are people being fined or arrested for it? Or getting their CCW’s revoked? No.

        Am I saying death threats are ok? Of course not. But I have enough common sense to know that James Yeager wasn’t serious and he was venting. How do I know this? Because if he was really going to go out and “kill someone” his video would’ve had a much more sinister tone. Or more likely, he would’ve just gone out and done it. His only mistake was venting on a public video.

        I have no love for Yeager at all, I think he’s an embarrassment to the gun community every time he opens his mouth. But I know a political stunt when I see one.

        Context people. Context.

        • avatarBob says:

          Black’s Law Dictionary defines a threat as a “declaration of intent to do harm or kill another or to do harm or injury to their property” (not exact words but close enough for here) and it doesn’t state that a specific person need necessarily be named as the object of the threat…but the Sneakret Service acts upon so called “veiled” threats—well, how “veiled” is “veiled”? Once when I called a congress creature’s DC office, I mentioned to the brain-dead staffer there that this particular congress creep apparently hadn’t learned from Tucson; the stuffer immediately called the capitol cops and the sheriff came to my door next day. Interestingly enough, a jewish congressman about eleven years ago openly advocated the shooting of cops

        • avatarMark says:

          You know if James Yeager was Muslim, he would be arrested right away called a “Terrorist” by lots of people.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          “You know if James Yeager was Muslim, he would be arrested right away called a “Terrorist” by lots of people.”

          This is a very good point that I have not seen mentioned before.

    • avatarAtime4Choosing says:

      Excellent point!

    • avatarduke nukem says:

      are you nuts???? why are you trying to compare ACTUAL DEATH THREATHS by an clearly not well in his brain individual to 14 year olds bulsshitting threaths on xbox??????

      • avatarGregolas says:

        In fact,the Supremes said in reversing a conviction of a KKK leader in the 60′s that a general threat that is not immediately intended to or directs immediate violence against a specific individual IS protected speech.
        The specific threat in this case was the KKK goof saying blacks should be killed. SCOTUS held that was okay as long as he didn’t point to a black man in the crowd and say”Kill HIM now!”
        Under this ruling,Yeager’s threat is stupid, but not criminal. It’s protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

        • avatarYou Can't Fix Stupid says:

          Seriously, did you see the video! He was angry, cussing and had a crazed look in his eyes.

        • avatarMD Matt says:

          Except that the KKK member is advocating a disgusting but protected opinion in the abstract and Yeager declared a specific personal intent. That’s the same reason that SNL joking about murder isn’t the same thing as a person posting their plan to bomb a public location on facebook.
          I agree with you in principal, Yeager probably didn’t pose a threat to anyone. But over and over again our side keeps saying that we should hold the individual and not the weapon accountable. We keep saying that the disturbed individuals who go on these rampages often leave signs. We keep saying that a reasonably informed person might have been able to get them help before they went critical.
          To me, what happened to Yeager wasn’t even close to what a responsible society should have done. Boom, he can’t legally carry a concealed pistol. Who cares? If he really was about to designate his own ground zero, revoking that permit was worse than useless. In fact, I can’t help but wonder why someone hasn’t tried to get him a psych evaluation instead of taking an action tailor made to provoke him into the very action DHS was presumably trying to prevent.
          The guy has a history of violent and impassioned public videos. At some point that stops being an exercise in hyperbole and starts being a credible threat posed by an armed, trained, and publicly notorious individual. At that point society should take notice and action. Yeager said it loud and proud. Whether what he said falls under the protection of the first amendment or not isn’t the issue for me. When someone says they want their stapler back or they’re going to burn the building down, I expect someone in authority to notice and take action.

      • avatartjlarson2k says:

        I’m sure people thought Adam Lanza was “bullshitting” too until he committed his crime.

        Death threats are either not ok at all or they are. Which is it?

    • avatarYou Can't Fix Stupid says:

      Oh James videos mentioned killing people and a army assembled….that is why there is 2 different videos to pack 1 and pack 2. Freedom of speech is one thing but mentioning killing people isn’t something I would write off especially since all this gun talks is going on.

  8. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    Whew I am so re-leaved….
    It is great to know that the wonderful and fair laws of this nation are being applied equally among all men of this fine nation….

    Oh I can’t even hide the urge to vomit! This is so disgusting, I guess it is ok for Piers Morgan and friends to joke about shooting someone by name, but gosh someone vents, and well you see what happens!

    I will be the first to admit his rant probably was ill advised, but having said that, there are plenty out there that deserve similar treatment. Gregory broke DC law on national television, but I guess it is ok? WTF!!!!

    I have the urge to vent sometimes…

  9. avatarAnon in CT With a Single Shot Pistol says:

    Lock both @ssholes in the same cell and lose the key.

    Though Yeager’s idiocy does more harm to RKBA than hair boy ever could.

    • avatarHal says:

      So is that a break action pistol, or…

      I was so sorry to hear about that. Please move to Texas is it passes.

      • avatarNot Anon in Ct For Long says:

        Unfortunately wife and I both have jobs we like, and a nice house. But it is tempting, esp given gun laws, taxes and cost of living.

  10. avatarSubZ says:

    Just proves the NRA right again. Current gun laws are not being enforced.

  11. avatarstateisevil says:

    Why we need constitutional carry

  12. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    “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” government officials.

    FIXED.

  13. avatarTRP says:

    While many folks won’t publicly admit it, many privately feel very uncomfortable with the direction our country is headed, particularly regarding the 2A…

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      And what direction is that? I’m not disputing what you said, I’m just unclear on your meaning, in part because I don’t know what direction it’s headed.

      I’m encouraged by the numbers of people I see flocking to exercise their right by purchasing guns (especially new gun owners and former fence-sitters), and I feel like the law, the Constitution, and the courts are all on our side. But at the same time, I’m nervous, because I feel as if we’re balanced on a knife edge, and the slightest puff of wind could push us in the wrong direction. For instance, if we had a repeat of Sandy Hook tomorrow, we’d be done. Done. And there’s a lot of crazy mfers out there. We can be right, beyond the shadow of a doubt, and the actions of one more crazy man (or two) could push the boulder over the edge, and there’d be no stopping it.

  14. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    I see, if your intent is to educate people by illegally carrying etc your firearm this is ok. Damn the law folks, imagination counts here. I’m sure intent will trump law on the next Tenn. goon squad prosecution, Randy

  15. avatarmiles says:

    Well he brought that all on himself… Why is it that people who try so hard to stand up for the 2nd amendment cannot take a moment to calm down and in a rational and cogent manner put together a sound defense of it? I have to admit I have never been a fan of this guy once I saw him carrying a pistol on each ankle besides his other daily carry weapon… Please to the next person who gets pisssed and wants their voice to be heard, sit down relax and then present an excellent argument with an ice cold personae that tells it exactly how it is but in a professional manner that is air tight.. We in the responsible firearm community cannot afford anymore of this “gun nut” type moments

  16. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    Am I the only one to see a moral and ethical difference between person A holding up an unloaded magazine and making the claim “these things contribute to people dying unnecessarily” vs person B threatening, very clearly and publicly, to commit murder up to and including political assassination?

    David Gregory was and is a hypocritical asshole, and what he did was ill advised but seems to me that it actually was protected under the 1st. Let’s keep this in perspective: he held up an unloaded magazine, with (presumably) no compatible ammunition or weapons system nearby, in situation where some jackholes said that the object was magically evil based on its GPS coordinates.

    Yeager made a credible threat to kill people. If Gregory threatened to kill someone, I’d laugh and ask him who he was going to get to do it for him. Yeager, on the other hand, leaves no doubt in his appearance, conduct and personal history that he has the capacity for violence. Credible threat, aka “shouting fire in a movie theater”.

    • avatarmchad says:

      well said and correct in my opinion 1+

    • avatarg says:

      +1 Agreed.

      Though I think we all want to believe that we are treated equally under the law, despite our knowledge that we’re not. If me, you, or Joe Average citizen were drunken driving and hit someone, they’d prosecute us to the full extent to the law versus Celebrity ABC could crash their car 10 times and still get off with just a hand slap.

      YouTube is powerful platform, but Yeager probably should have considered that not everybody who watches his videos is a friend. In the modern digital age anything we say or write can and WILL be used against us if we’re not careful.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        I have yet to see any evidence that Yeager even understands the concept of considering the possible results of any action on his part.

        I could be wrong. I don’t know the guy. And I’m admittedly judging him on his public persona and media reports covering his antics. But his pattern of behavior is consistent of someone who should have “POOR IMPULSE CONTROL” permanently tattooed on their forehead as fair warning to the rest of us. (Yes, that’s a Snow Crash reference.)

        • avatarJean Paul says:

          I have to agree. I subscribe to his channel, more for laughs that anything, and he gets ENRAGED when people question anything he says.

          For cryin’ out loud, he just made a video announcing the unbanning of commenters, then following up with “I’m not going to read the comments.”. WTF?

          He doesn’t seem to understand how to use the new media at all.

        • avatarA Trusted Friend in Science says:

          +10 for Snow Crash Reference, although Yeager only wishes he were as bad ass as Raven.

    • avatartjlarson2k says:

      Was it “really” a credible threat?

      James Yeager is pretty much a caricature of himself. Hot-headed, loud-mouthed, and vulgar.

      He owns a range and is an instructor. He’s also a police officer and a soldier. Does he go off half-cocked half the time? Sure.

      So why didn’t they just send some police officers down there to have a chat with him about his video and perhaps get it edited so it’s not so indicative of inciting something along the lines of rabble-rousing? It’s the 1st Amendment after all.

      Why even bother going about revoking his CCW? How does revoking his CCW cancel out the perceived threat they felt his video portrayed?

    • avatarHenry Bowman says:

      “Yeager made a credible threat to kill people”

      Which individuals would have standing for a tort suit? He threatened no actual person… no individual.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        A credible declaration of criminal intent does not have to be specific to a named person. In any case, he did threaten a specific class of persons (elected politicians of whom he disapproved) in his rant.

        Under your theory, we should ignore YouTube videos posted by domestic jihadis proclaiming that they were ready to do their part by taking dramatic action within the US.

        Why are you even defending this jackhole? Do you seriously believe that what he said was NOT intended to be threatening and frightening to the folks he meant to intimidate?

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          I don’t see anything wrong with giving people fair warning when their actions will trigger a violent, defensive response.

          It is the .gov that issued a “credible declaration of criminal intent.” Yeager’s statement was issued in response to a specific threat to all gun owners right’s and property.

          You need to shift your perspective.

        • avatarMD Matt says:

          In the interest of furthering an interesting debate:

          “I don’t see anything wrong with giving people fair warning when their actions will trigger a –violent—defensive—response.”

          Let’s look as far back as the bible, specifically the term “an eye for an eye.” That phrase refers to the idea that you can only take an eye for the loss of an eye, not a leg or an arm. The response has to be proportional to the offense. We can disagree over the magnitude of the government’s action. I have a hard time reconciling the idea of Yeager shooting people he disagrees with to the term “defensive” though. Setting aside the question of whether Yeager’s rant was a credible threat, do I get to shoot every politician who advances an agenda I disagree with? Self—defense—requires me to be in immediate mortal peril or belief of same. So if the brown shirts are coming to my door to pull me to a concentration camp I’ve got a green light. If someone makes a law I don’t like, not so much.

          “It is the gov that issued a “credible declaration of criminal intent.” Yeager’s statement was issued in response to a specific threat to all gun owners right’s and property.”

          I believe that gun control is inherently unconstitutional, as I suspect you do as well. That’s based on my interpretation of the law and the context under which it was drafted. Unfortunately, one of the pitfalls of living in a –democratic—society is that sometimes you get out voted. That doesn’t mean your view is less valid. It does mean that differing views may hold sway in the halls of government. There is legal precedent for gun control. It aint right and sure aint fair, but it’s fact. Threatening to kill people doesn’t change the election results or case law. Killing people might change them, but I doubt in the way you or I would like. We have a system for challenging unconstitutional laws. It doesn’t involve mass murder or political assassination. Effectively that’s what Yeager was advocating, grandstanding or otherwise.

          You need to shift your perspective.

      • avatarLarry says:

        I’ve head a lot of liberals threatening to kill gun owners on National TV or other media outlets. How come they haven’t lost their broadcasting rights. Generally, the FCC doesn’t look kindly on those types of on the air comments. Where’s the outrage?

        • avatarNot Anon in Ct For Long says:

          The threats aren’t credible due to their excessive pussitude. : ))

  17. avatarIn Memphis says:

    “…criminal charges wouldn’t serve the public’s best interests…”

    Criminal charges wouldn’t serve the **adgendas** best interests…

    FIXED

    Edit to Add: I fail to see what public interest had to do with it.

  18. avatarmchad says:

    Gregory is an idiot that probably couldn’t figure out what end of the magazine is inserted into the rifle, nobody should be surprised that he isn’t going to be prosecuted, the Peoples Republic of Washington D.C. loves the liberal media too much to hurt one of their own.

    And…

    Yeager is one of the gun owners that liberals think we all are, redneck hillbillies just waiting for the chance to shoot somebody. Are they making an example out of him? of course they are but maybe it will teach him and others like him that you don’t win friends and influence people by making threats and bullying…

  19. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    Nothing of what Yeager said nor anything Gregory did was actually wrong. No person was harmed, threatened, or endangered in any way by either of them. Can we please stop this blind worship of THE LAW? It is our duty to disobey unjust laws.

    • avatarmchad says:

      My concern isn’t Yeager, its the wackjobs that worship him has a Gun God that might just start shooting people at his command…

    • avatarMOG says:

      Some may see laws against various crimes they commit as unjust. I know what you were saying, but it came out wrong. If he had said, (or, did he)?, “In my opinion……..”. He’s clean.

  20. avatartjlarson2k says:

    Credible Threat Argument

    Was it “really” a credible threat?

    James Yeager is pretty much a caricature of himself. A hot-headed, loud-mouthed, and vulgar soldier alpha male caveman stereotype. He may as well be a reality TV character.

    When he’s off camera (youtube) he runs a range and is an instructor. He’s also a police officer and a soldier. Does he go off half-cocked when off camera sometimes? I’m sure he does.

    So why bother with this public wrist-slap gesture of revoking his CCW? Why didn’t they just send some police officers down there to have a chat with him about his video and just tell him to tone it down? Or perhaps get it edited so it’s not so indicative of inciting something along the lines of rabble-rousing? It’s the 1st Amendment after all.

    Why even bother going about revoking his CCW? How does revoking his CCW cancel out the perceived threat they felt his video portrayed?

  21. avatar2nd Amendment says:

    Yeager is loud-mouthed tool. And, yeah, I’ve seen his ERSM video—all 40+ minutes of it—and I’m not basing that condemnation on that incident.

    BUT! I didn’t hear any specific threat, just a rant. And yet, the gub’mit decided to infringe further upon his second amendment rights by grabbing his CCW. What the Tennessee government has done is nothing short of an infringement on his second and first amendment rights. We are seeing the dawn of a tyrannical U.S. government.

    • avatarRacer X says:

      Come on, its a broad stretch to claim his 2A right was infringed on. CCW isn’t protected in any of the legal definitions of the 2A (hopefully that will change at some point). I think if asked if CCW should be issued to people who had made PUBLIC non-specific threats to kill, most of us would agree that probably wouldn’t be a great idea.

    • avatarAtime4Choosing says:

      Yep–and it amazes me that some on this site actually see no problem with that action taken against Yeager—asshole or not.

      But then again, 0bama really doesn’t want to take our guns away—so I guess I’m too paranoid.

  22. avatarGreg Camp says:

    You only get to have a gun and assorted related equipment if you support gun control. That’s the attitude that so many control freaks take.

  23. avatarMD Matt says:

    The first amendment is a qualified right. As is so often repeated, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theatre.
    Over and over again I hear the gun community calling to blame the individual and not the object. The reality is that both of these men did something wrong. One of them knowingly broke the law. You don’t ask the police for permission unless you know that what you’re doing is questionable in the first place. He broke the law. His network sanctioned the crime.
    Yeager may have made a habit of shooting his mouth off, but it was his stated intent to shoot someone else’s mouth off that put him in hot water. Perhaps he was just mad as hell and letting the world know he wasn’t going to take it any more. Perhaps he was grandstanding for the audience. Regardless, he knowingly, publicly, and notoriously asserted that he could and would use lethal force in circumstances other than self defense.
    I believe in the first and second amendment. I also believe that people should be held accountable for their words and actions. Most of the jack wagons that go on shooting sprees give signs. They speak to friends and family. They post questionable material to social media and youtube. Yeager’s lucky he just had his carry permit revoked and that he wasn’t sent in for a psych work up.
    Owning and carrying firearms, let alone acting as one of the public faces of the gun community carries a proportionally high level of responsibility. IMHO Yeager failed that standard. Whether what he said warrants revocation of his permit is another question entirely.

  24. avatarSaul Feldstein says:

    Yeagers rant might make more sense if you realize this is his business the govt is talking about shutting down. Half his training classes involve high cap black rifles.

    People say and do rash things when their family or livelihood is threatened.

    Maybe he voiced what alot of people think but realize they cannot say in this desultory enviroment where the people are the enemy of the Statists.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      Yeager is a master of free publicity.

      • avatarSaul Feldstein says:

        Regardless, his frustration should be understood, he is upset about the potential abrogation of vested rights.

        When a black comedian jokes about killing white people the NYC audience laughs.

  25. avatarTRUTHY says:

    The rich walks again, we have the best legal system MONEY can buy. IF that were you or I, we would have done the perp walk immediately.

  26. avatarLance says:

    Not surprised Yeager who did something really stupid got his CCW revoked.

    Sad to say liberal scum bag cops help liberal scumbag propaganda “news” reporter get away with crime. If your a vet who bleed for this nation you will be prosecuted on the high way if you ave a Glock mag but if your a Nazi who wants to destroy the nation you get a free pass.

    • avatarjohn roland says:

      What kind of pathetic retarded shortdick are you, Lance, to compare a news reporter to a “Nazi who wants to destroy the nation”? You have a serious comprehension and reality problem, son.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      “Nazi who wants to destroy the nation you get a free pass.”

      that aint no bullshit either..

      lance is spot on. like i have said before; to washington, it is acceptable to kill muslim children in foreign lands with drones…apparently muslims dont cry for the deaths of their children (according to washington’s perception apparently). Apparently torture is ok.

      and these are the same f^cktards that want to punish you and I. lets not hold anything back when we judge them harshly.

  27. avatarSteve says:

    Department of pre-crime……WTF?

    Can someone splain’ that to me?

    • avatarcellude says:

      Like in the movie Minority Report. Maybe the state of Tenn. has a set of “twins” too? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2bmImPNKbM

    • avatarmatt says:

      It is called “assault”.

      At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.
      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        I agree… so it was Biden who committed the assualt by threatening “executive orders” to violate our rights and property. He threatened harm and the government definitely has the ability to carry out such harm.

        In that case, Yeager’s statement was made to counteract a real, credible threat to his life, liberty, property, inherent rights, and livelihood. That real, credible threat also applies to you and me.

        • avatarmatt says:

          Violating rights and assault are different.
          An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm…

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          You should know that government edicts are backed up by the threat of lethal violence.

        • avatarmatt says:

          You should know that some animals are more equal than others, the pigs certainly think so.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          Okay. So we agree. But let’s not let disdain for individual pigs overshadow the true nature of the farm. Pigs will be led to the slaughter along with sheep and cows.

        • avatarmatt says:

          If its any condolence, one of the few labels I apply to myself in Anarchist.

        • avatarMD Matt says:

          Uh no.
          We can happily debate what authority the president actually wields in this matter, but Biden was stating intent to use the legal authority vested in his office to enact change. Yeager said that he would respond by killing people.
          The proximal cause and response aren’t proportional or appropriate.
          Yeager said that he was going to in effect respond to political action with deadly force. That’s not even self defense.

  28. avatarjwm says:

    Both men are jackholes. Nuff said. Gregory was under DC’s jurisdiction and Yeager was under Tennesee’s Jurisdiction. This is one of the pitfalls of having a hodge podge of local and federal laws.

    Apparently, living in my zip code makes it a constitution free zone. That’s not fair or right but I’m stuck with it regardless.

  29. avatarChris says:

    If I carry in DC it’s all in an effort to educate people on our Constitution and Bill of Rights. So I’m good, right?

  30. avatarrick says:

    Why does everyone bow down to licensing.. Begging for permission to exercise ones rights is bogus… ! Aside from that… this is how it begins.. register, and then if you exercise a right the “so called authorities” do not like … like exercising your 1st amemendment rights they will take your 2ond away.. this is pure bullshit and tyrannical… Bow to them or just organize till you reach a 1millionor so and tell the licensing folks to go screw ! Oh, wait we cant do that we are sheep and we have to follow their laws as they interpret what an 8grader can in the constitution.. how sick of a society have we become that simple english has become so twisted and maligned for political and power purposes.. but I digress because I am probably speaking to cowards … you can email me sevenators7@gmail.com Peace..

  31. avatarDon says:

    So Yeager is an ass, but technically he is being punished with legal repercussions for in a heated moment of anger, after being vilified by half the population, for free speech. Gregory in a premeditated act, committed a felony, and will go unpunished.

  32. avatarDon says:

    Serious question… are James Yeager and Buck Angel the same person?

  33. avatarRKflorida says:

    Gregory was in Washington D.C., under their law and liberal viewpoints. Yeager was in Tenn. under their laws. Apples to oranges. Several points.

    Gregory’s actions have no relevance to Yeager. You are saying that unless all are punished, none can be punished.
    You are arguing that Gregory should be punished for something you are fighting to get removed. You should have been defending his action against a law that is in violation of the 2nd amendment.
    You are claiming it’s not “Fair” as though fair has anything to do with it. That is the argument of children. Here’s what’s fair, Yeager opened his mouth intentionally that he was going to kill someone as a result of that persons actions. This is against the law. A consequence of his action is that it can be used by the liberal media to hurt the 2nd amendment supporters. Can’t you hear it now; “Here’s a typical statement by a representative of the pro-gun people.” That is really unfair, to me and to you.

  34. avatar2Wheels says:

    Hahahahahahahaha!

    I can’t stop laughing!

    I’ve been waiting for this insane loser who threatens to assault/murder anyone who insults him (not kidding, watch some of his vids, I believe he even offered to pay their plane ticket to come to TN) to step over the line.

    You may think this was his first violent threat, far from it. If you pay any attention to his youtube posts you’ll be shocked that anyone actually pays money to be trained by him when so many other reputable trainers are out there.

    Seriously, I’m all about protecting everyones rights… But it’s hard to care when guys like Yeager make the rest of us look so darned bad!

    • avatarmatt says:

      Actually James is such a coward that he backed out of his offer. I told him I accepted and sent him my home address where he could mail a round trip plane ticket. He then said he would only send a one way plane ticket, not pay for a hotel room, and sent out the lolwtf contract. Some other people did go so far as trying to get the contract notarized, but the notaries refused because the contract was inherently illegal. Even though James is a ex-Chief of Police, he aparently doesnt know that the TN state constitution bans dueling.

      • avatar2Wheels says:

        Wonder why he’s too cheap to refuse to pay both ways, kinda silly. I’ve read a bit about his lovely little “contract”… Makes for a good laugh, I can only wonder how serious he is about this stuff in person.

  35. avatarLarry says:

    Total BS. They are trying to push this guy over the edge. They better be careful as they might just get what they are looking for. You can bet they are watching his every move right now. Hold tight James. Don’t give them what they want.

  36. avatartjlarson2k says:

    So does this mean all gun owners on Xbox live and other online game platforms that are perhaps involved in ladling out death threats to other players online will get their CCW’s revoked as well? Or people that threaten others via multiplayer game environments, youtube videos, or in forums?

    It’s a slippery slope…

    As far as perceiving Yeager as a “credible” threat. Please. He’s a self-created blow-hard caricature of a hot-headed soldier.

    And if they really perceived him as a threat, he would be in jail, not being slapped on the wrist with this CCW revocation. It’s simply a publicity stunt and a not-so-veiled jab at the left punishing a gun owner because they could.

    Youtube could’ve simply shut down the video and the DA could’ve assigned a few officers to have a chat with Yeager regarding his intentions and then required him to submit that follow up video (which he did anyway).

  37. avatarJohn Boch says:

    Looks like Mr. Yeager found that line he shouldn’t step over. Only problem is it was a couple of steps behind him.

    Thanks for contributing to the license revocation numbers there in Tennessee, Mr. Y.

    John

  38. avatarJAS says:

    He blew it. Big time. Emotional gets you dead every time. And he is, too emotional.

    Cold as in Ice

  39. avatarRob says:

    I guess you could say that I have a lot of devices intended as a prop to provoke public discussion on gun control. There, you can’t touch me now.

  40. avatarWiebelhaus says:

    This is bullshit, I’m getting fed up with nonsense man.

  41. avatarmountocean says:

    So to simplify:
    Statements (1st amendment) get your 2nd amendment rights infringed upon, but physical violation of law (ignoring that law is unconstitutional) are not addressed due to 1st amendment protection.
    To oversimplify: I suppose Gregory would be in jail rigth now if he SAID he’d bring a banned mag into DC, and Yeager would be free as a bird if he “informed” the public about the danger of RPGs.

  42. avatarmatt says:

    Although I am not cruel enough to do so, I would lol if a uber troll out there files for a restraining order against James regarding the duel contract/recent youtube rant, just so the TN state police come with a SWAT team to seize his guns.

  43. avatarZebra says:

    We live in a paranoid nation filled with busybodies who crave constant attention. Anyone who would threaten to kill people in a YouTube video that can be seen worldwide reaps what he sows. A bit of advice from Abe Lincoln: “Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

  44. avatarAccur81 says:

    I’ll be honest: I signed the petition against David Gregory because I think he’s an arrogant liberal idiot. I did so with the hopes that he could run afoul of a stupid gun law. I’ve disagreed with Yeager also, and could see why his permit got revoked. One could certainly make a case tha he was acting in a threatening manner. He definitely seems to have anger management issues.

    Another argument against gun control is that the laws are not equally applied.

  45. avatarMotoJB says:

    Sorry but he got what he deserved…you go on youtube threatening to start killing people, what do you expect? IDIOT.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      ive been laughing about this since i first heard it.

      not to sound suspicious of anybody or accuse them of ulterior motives, but you have to wonder about somebody that makes a video where a freedom loving person would agree with 90% of it then completely blow it at the last few seconds by “drawing a line in the sand” by threatening to shoot somebody. That is how I felt. “oh yeah, i agree with you 100…..oh wait. WTF!? this guy is nuts!”.

  46. avatarChris says:

    In regards to James yeager : BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…

    That being said David gregory also broke the law and should be held accountable.

  47. avatarmatt says:

    LOL James now has started doing his videos with his lawyer present. And now he has back tracked saying he wont shoot people if they take his guns.

  48. avatarO.E says:

    This is no good. The anon trolls intend to ruin a man and by domino rally effect those who they claim to be protecting. James served with Police back in the day according to his records, he is so far then experienced and trained in batons, cs/pepper spray/ and firearms plus aggressive driving techniques. Let the queer trolls dispute this.

  49. avatarMazikeen says:

    I don’t care for his general attitude, and don’t feel he promotes gun ownership in a very good way. However, I do support him as a gun owner and call foul, seriously foul, that his is called out for a statement on you tube while others are threatening publically, murder, names called out by individuals calling for the murder of prominent figures on the “right” while the media openly breaks ignorant laws in front of the entire nation with no repercussions. It is an assinine situation that I feel some of the watchdog organizations should get some clout behind and correct just as quickly as the “verdict” was handed down. In defense of Yaeger and all gun owners. I should not have to “apply” to carry a concealed weapon in the USA and he should not lose the government given “privilege” for speaking his mind in the USA.

  50. avatarduke nukem says:

    lesson learn kids. dont go on youtube and advocate murder for no reazon at all. i hope that asshole james yeager gets more punishment

  51. avatarJW says:

    James is on our side. My bags are packed.

  52. avatarGyufygy says:

    Regarding Gregory, if someone showed a marijuana joint (redundant, but being specific) on national television, regardless of cause, they’d be in trouble. Possession is easy to prove when millions see you admit it. Hell, Boobiegate during the Superbowl a few years back earned some nice fines, and that was showing basic anatomy 50% of the population has or will have. But Gregory skates. Bull. Shit. Hypocritical bullshit that needs to be hyped and shouted about as an example of how stupid and unfair these laws are.

    Yeager is an idiot who screams roid rage, but it seems like he has a great First Amendment argument to get his permit back.

  53. avatarDee says:

    First of all.. he’s an ex-cop who was FIRED. That says a lot!
    Secondly, if ANY on-the-job officer said this crap on YouTube they’d be fired on the spot – with gun and badge taken away immediately. So, I’m GLAD they took his gun privileges away! I lived with cops my whole life. I’ve lived around guns owned by RESPONSIBLE individuals! We don’t need nut jobs like him. He’s protecting NO ONE but himself. Get a life!

  54. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    “recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment”

    Wait!, so intent matters when you break the law? Got it. My intent is to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights – I have no intention of killing anyone. So can I ignore the law?

  55. avatarTom RKBA says:

    We know the Feds are violating the Second Amendment with their laws. There should be no issue whatsoever with Gregory holding up a 30 round mag on TV in a studio located in DC. Now, here is the important part:

    Gun rights groups and members should have jumped to Gregory’s defense to make sure there were no charges! THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH 30 ROUND MAGAZINES ANYWHERE IN THE USA!

    Instead, we wasted the opportunity to remove an unconstitutional law!!

    • avatarMD Matt says:

      Have to disagree with you there. Besides the fact that the two instances of government review here aren’t even remotely related or comparable, what NBC did was more than just a violation of DC code.
      • They knew that possession of the offending accessory was at least questionable or they wouldn’t have asked for clarification.
      • They knowingly flouted the law, in spite of having been advised to the contrary.
      • While the TV personality in question may have been the public face of the deed, the network sanctioned his actions with full knowledge that the police hadn’t provided an exemption.
      • Ignorance of the law is neither a defense or relevant.

      Sure, the law’s pointless and illogical on its face. But it is the law. More over, this isn’t a case of one individual mistakenly flouting DC code with no resulting harm to society. It’s a case of an international entity consciously choosing to disregard standing statute on national television. That is a bald face case of premeditated criminal intent.
      I agree with you that a huge opportunity was missed here. But that opportunity was to hold the network accountable for their hubris by enforcing the very gun control measures that their first-amendment protected broadcast was intended to support. In addition to being a text book example of poetic justice, holding CNN accountable would also illustrate how simple it is to fall afoul of laws meant to protect the public while doing no such thing.
      I agree, we need to advocate having the law changed. But just as important, we need to make sure that society understands that the pro-gun community supports the rule of law, even laws we don’t agree with. It’s one thing to say that we won’t stand for tyranny. It’s something else to support selective enforcement.
      I’d be fine with the DC legal system exercising judicial discretion in the name of the common good were it not for the fact that everyone here knows that a private citizen wouldn’t have received the same consideration, regardless of their “intent.” Fight to change the law. Make sure we also point out who is the criminal entity in this story, not the man on the screen, but the entity crafting the vehicle for that broadcast with malice aforethought.

  56. avatarMilsurp Collector says:

    I saw this coming from miles away. Going onto one of the most viewed websites on the internet and cranking out death threats like Sunday morning pancakes ranks right up there with attempted armed robbery of a gun shop on the stupid scale.

  57. avatarQueso says:

    If you are irresponsible in your actions. You do not diserve to have a CCW. Someone else in a post said this guy is a police officer? WOW,giving law enforcement a bad name. Losing you cool does not help your cause. I too am uneasy about all the 2nd amendment talk lately. If you do your reserch, and not listen to all the media propaganda, you will see that nothing much is really going to happen. We live in The United States of America. If you dont like the laws in your state move. But by God do not move your back country, inbread ass’s, anywhere north of Texas, and West of Kansas. Nobody up here will tolerate your hillbilly whining.

  58. avatarChristoff says:

    If I had to choose which one to grab a bee with… definitely David Gregory.

    But if I had to choose which one of them to back me up in a gunfight…. possibly David Gregory.

  59. avatarFug says:

    James may be a hothead, he may be a chickenshit, I really don’t know. His video persona is entertaining and I’ve found some of his work informative. I’m not a hardcore fan of his by any means and I’m not impressed with contemporary mercenaries. It is hard to believe he was a police officer.

    I think some of you may feel quite foolish for bashing him on this if Obama does choose t0 enforce civilian disarmament by executive order. What will you do then? You underestimate the gun grabbers because they have lain dormant for so long, but I believe they intend to strike while the iron is hot. They intend to terminate our rights with extreme prejudice and resistance will be futile, unless you want to become some kind of hillbilly Cossack… like James.

    There is an intense sense of euphoria among the establishment left and they are ready to usher in the age of non-violence, they want us to “evolve” and they truly hate people who exercise their 2A rights. They are a minority but they are highly placed and extremely influential with their wealth, more than many realize. They intend to castrate us and you shouldn’t be surprised if you are referred to as a commodity fetishist some time in the next four years, because they really are pinko Marxist bastards.

    You can call me crazy, but I think we must demand more accurate accounting of what really happened in Aurora and Newtown. James Holmes has yet to enter a plea and neither Adam Lanza nor his mother will ever face a trial. Both cases are shrouded in mystery and conspiracy theory. Did you know two men in camouflage were apparently arrested outside Sandy Hook? Did you see the footage circulating, allegedly from Sandy Hook, of a police officer emptying an AR in the trunk of a car with no gloves on? Did you hear that black Honda might not have belonged to Adam’s mother after all? The government needs to release more details about both of these incidents and dispel any myths to the public if they are to be used as inspiration for executive orders…

    That’s what this comes down to, executive orders. What will you do? Obama’s zealots will shout you down, they will be prepared to exploit every avenue to suppress lawful resistance. They have already vilified the NRA in the eyes of many. If you don’t think they are willing to go for an EO and fight tooth and nail to keep it, then you haven’t been paying attention. There will be many traitors along the way like Ephialtes, just look how quick Cerberus turned tail after buying up a huge chunk of domestic firearms manufacturing! It will get ugly and someone very well may start shooting. What then, comrades? What then? James is only saying what many are thinking and the lefties already knew that. In fact, they are counting on it because they know they don’t have the votes. Do not underestimate them and never forget what the 2A is really about. Our current President spent his much of his youth in a South East Asian military Junta, the stepchild of a high official. The worst case scenario is blue helmets by the next Presidential election, that cannot be ruled out at this point. We will have Al-Jazeera US broadcasting 24/7 by then. Do not underestimate their desire to destroy our way of life.

    • avatarChristoff says:

      People like James Yeager only HELP that small minority that wants to try to enforce an authoritarian utopia. I think anyone who gets out of their bubble a little bit will see that is true. He is not going to scare Americans into agreeing with him. He’s more likely to annoy them into approving of greater restrictions on guns–something that’s entirely doable under our laws and Constitution. America is not at that point yet, but perhaps a media wave of infantile, hotheaded Yeagers could help push it in that direction.

    • avatarJosef says:

      You know, if this were last year I would call you a nut.

      But Al Jazeera just purchased a 24/7 news station here.

      • avatarChristoff says:

        Al Jazeera English has been around for years. I know some people who work there. Good peeple, and they do some good work sometimes. Russia has a 24-hour English language station too, if you’re into checking out alternate viewpoints sometimes. Be careful though… you might accidentally turn Muslim, or Orthodox, or BOTH. Plus communist.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        Don’t knock Al Jazeera English. As Christoff points out, they and RT (Russian) are pretty highly regarded for their coverage of events both here and abroad.

  60. avatarAlan Rose says:

    Yeager’s state of KY allows open carry so that permit revocation doesn’t hurt him too much unless he’s travelling to a CC only state that gives reciprocity.

    http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=232

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      Except his company, Tactical Response, is in Camden, TN, which is about an hour from the KY state line.

  61. avatarFred says:

    I’m not a fan of the man. However, his First Amendment rights were violated. The Bill of Rights still apply to him. His crime was that of being obnoxious. His video was not the equivalent of shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater. Mostly, he embarrassed more than a few gun-rights proponents.

  62. avatarbebblely says:

    Why is it this man did not go to jail?? This lady did: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/sep/08/nashville-woman-accused-making-terrorist-threats-t/

    Lets hear how people spin this. There is nothing informative about this guy other than he is hateful, not racist. But explain the double standard, both happened in Tennessee. They do look a lot different though. Wait, that was just James blowing off smoke but the Muslim lady was gone in a heartbeat!!! Wonder why??

  63. avatarbebblely says:

    In fact, this man was invited to the MSNBC the next night to give more national exposure to his hate.

  64. avatarJRVINNY says:

    Could Gregory have made his point with a photograph? I think he could have. That doesn’t make very good TV though. I guess justice isn’t as blind as they say.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.