In the video above, gun guru James Yeager makes a distinction between people in the “gun community” vs. people in the “gun culture.” People who don’t agree with Yeager’s take-no-prisoners approach to gun rights are “politically correct butt-kissing boot lickers who want to appease their liberal masters.” People who are down with Yeager’s stance and style are “an unapologetic group of people that are simply doing what our creator gave us the right to do.” While I consider myself a gun rights absolutist, there are plenty of folks who don’t share my opinion on some things (e.g. they don’t see a problem with background checks). I still think we’re on the same team, generally speaking. Am I wrong?

136 Responses to Question of the Day: Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

  1. Without some degree of ‘politically correct boot licking’, many of the legal victories recently would not have happened.

    We all have to live and interact with broader society, many of whom believe sincerely that owning guns and using them is a morally disreputable act. We will not appeal to them or their votes by using terms like “Creator” and “boot licking”.

    We need to collectively get our marketing sense in gear, or the voters of the future won’t see the point in preserving the ” antiquated ” RKBA-especially if the only public advocates are bald dudes spouting off about martial law and confrontation.

    • I think the point is that gun ownership is a right, and rights cannot be voted away. Talking about marketing and voters is treating the Constitution as irrelevant, and once you start down that slope, game over.

      • Did you know Mexico has a right to keep and bear arms in its constitution?

        Most Mexicans don’t. Just because there’s a Constitution which says people have Right X does not mean that’s really the case on the ground.

        That fact would seem to go against the idea that rights can’t be voted away. Maybe not directly, but an ignorant citizenry can sure vote to ignore them. At the end of the day, a right ignored by the government is a right functionally repealed.

        We can’t let that happen-while opposing incremental laws like universal BG checks is one part, the other involves marketing-like not spouting off on YouTube about revolution, martial law, and challenging people to duels while labeling everyone with a different opinion as ‘boot lickers’.

        We often grouse about younger folks caring more about iPhones then gun laws. With guys like James Yeager, who needs to wonder why that is?

        • Mexico’s constitution does indeed mention the right to keep and bear arms. However, it’s pure lip service on the face of it with only the thinnest veil of sincerity. It provides that Mexicans may possess any firearm, except when expressly prohibited by law. Well.

          We joke in here about the 2A not having any “void where prohibited by law” clause. Theirs actually does have it! Nevertheless, your point is valid and well taken.

          Ultimately, words, whether fervently spoken or pleasantly printed, do not guarantee anything. It’s the reality of the surrounding culture that holds final sway. A constitution provides a solid starting point for deliberations, but as a practical matter, it is not the final word. And that’s a shame.

      • Rights can in fact be voted away. You can scream and stomp your feet all day long about “natural rights” but if everybody thinks you’re just a “gun nut” then they’ll have no problem having you locked up or gunned down by the ATF and nobody will give a damn because you lost the public relations battle.

        • Of course Rights can be voted away lawfully. An amendment can gain the required support, altering the Constitution. Alternatively, voters can repeatedly elect an anti-2A (or anti-4th or 1st amendment) president and senate, leading eventually to a Supreme Court that simply interprets the meaning of the rights differently, since “It is emphatically the duty of the Judiciary to say what the law is.”

          When I listen to the Yeager-type pieces (which is rare) I come away with the question “Do guys like him ever ask themselves when this ‘endowed by the creator with certain unalienable rights’ stuff came to be taken seriously?” For most of recorded history your ancestors had such rights as you (and those agreeing with you) physically and politically demanded.

          It is uniquely the charm of a republic, one based on representative democracy, that rights can be claimed as inalienable, but can be voted away, since “they’re ours just until we elect tyrants-in-waiting.” A constitutional right is simply a law which requires a super-majority approval by federal and state legislatures to abrogate. Any other claim is just blow-hard tough talk.

          Our political and social culture can be stolen in a single term of the federal courts. I notice that it has been federal courts alone which have, very rapidly, dispatched both federal and state statutory definitions of marriage to the dustbin of democracy, informing us that there is a Right for two men to “marry”. That is just an example of the mechanism, without comment on the instance. The same could be done with other apparently trivial characteristics of our political culture. It is foolish arrogance to rely on a claim of right, thinking that this somehow relieves us of the naturally imposed requirement to conduct politics. Our creator may have endowed us with the right of self-defense, but the creator simultaneously burdened us with the obligation to conduct politics, by ballot, publicity, or conflict, to defend those rights. Yeager is not politic. He’s riding the fringe to make a living. Nothing noble in that.

        • Actually, you are 100 percent right.

          Rights can be voted away, which is why the concept of an armed populace exists. You only have as much freedom as you are willing to fight for.

          I believe in natural rights, and, like all rights, they must be reinforced with teeth behind them. If not, they are as pliable as play dough.

        • Yes, in todays environment, rights can be voted away, maybe I should have been more clear. It is up to the courts, ie checks and balances, to maintain the legality or constitutionality of what laws are enacted. We have seen how this has been subverted and politicized, with the judicial branch writing laws from the bench and altering the Constitution by ignoring it or not upholding it. So in a practical sense you are right, voters can scrap the Constitution, but in a technical sense, it is illegal.

    • Without some degree of ‘politically correct boot licking’, many of the legal defeats in the last century would not have happened.

    • “Without some degree of ‘politically correct boot licking’, many of the legal victories recently would not have happened.”

      I know several of the parties who have won those legal victories. I don’t know one who would agree with that assertion.

      What specifically don you propose to teach them, that they don’t already know?

    • Progressives win elections by lying to the public. Conservatives lose elections by telling the truth. The General public can’t handle the truth.

  2. Well…

    Somewhere there’s a line. The “butters” (“I support the Second Amendment, but…”) are definitely on the other side. Personally, I think it’s dangerous to move the line away from no restrictions, but I also know that’s going to be a very difficult goal to achieve.

  3. I don’t see a problem with having a voluntary background check system available to any citizen. A system that has no mention of guns and can be used for any number of interactions or transactions ie. Hiring a new employee or a babysitter.

    • I understand where you are coming from. But having a BC for any transactions actually send a clear message: we let you out of prison, but we don’t actually trust you. The question is why we let them out in the first place then?
      On one hand we are bleeding hearts caring about these people’s freedom, but we are quickly to deny it to them when they try to live their life as normal citizens.
      That shows some sort of hypocrisy.

    • IMO, a system such as this would solve the whole background checks issue. A free instant check system that keeps no records of what is being sold would seem to satisfy both sides. But, just try to get a liberal to agree to dumping the 20 year record keeping requirement of the current system and they say that you want murderers to have guns and call you a baby killer.

      Remember, boys and girls, to a liberal, compromise means you give up half of what you ask for, but liberals get everything they want.

      • I can tell you one major reason this will not happen. In the discussion, actual numbers would be attached to the COST of this ridiculous system, and when people found out how much “free” background checks were going to cost, the whole idea would quickly be tossed in the fire pit. One of the idiot states up nawth adopted a system of all the space cadet boosht of microstamping and such pipe dreams a few years back, and funded the first 10 years with, I believe, $100 million, to see how effective it would be. After 3 years they dropped it again, after it had contributed to solving zero cases and had cost over $2 billion. I think their unicorns were choking on the rainbows, too. The federal govt does not mind spending truckloads of our tax dollars on something which accomplishes exactly nothing, but even they realize that opening it up for use by everyone would cause the cost to skyrocket to the point they couldn’t hide it any more.

      • Ideally, according to the far left, the information that there are 320 million “prohibited persons” in America.

      • I would honestly have to say none. Even storing Person A requested a BC would tickle the fancy of someone in the alphabet soup leading to further investigation of something that’s none of their business.

    • Background checks are ass backwards. There is no due process to exercise your rights. You are part of the problem if you don’t understand this.

      Due process is required by the Constitution as a condition for government to take away your rights. The Constitution limits government, not citizens.

    • I have always agreed with this. I believe it would substantially increase the number of gun sales conducted with background checks too, which isn’t necessarily a problem per se, but it would compel the “omg no background checks!?” crowd to have a glass of STFU.

      And yes, they can be used for anything. The background checks industry wouldnt like it.

  4. Considering the tornado of bile and vomit the grabbers have hurled at us I consider “boot licker” an upgrade. And whether we agree with every pro gunner or not, every grabber disagrees with all of us. In my experience, people who actually support (not ‘support, but…’) gun rights in general are rather easy to rally against further infringements. It’s a shorter hop from “I support gun rights” to “I oppose gun laws.”

  5. I’m firmly of two minds about the background check issue.
    “IF” all records were destroyed as was the original intent of the statute I might be OK with it.
    But, since the Federal Government, esp. this administration, has proved at almost every turn that the priority is NOT to protect the liberty the citizen, it leaves one with only one logical stand and that is to be firmly against any type of background check system.

    • The problem with the background check system is that it grants the government a power it simply does not have. The government cannot deny any free man the right to keep and bear arms. End of story.

      • Kinda makes you wonder why ex-cons lose their 2nd amendment rights after they’ve paid their debt to society, right?

        • Exactly. If they have paid their debt, leave them bee. If they are still dangerous, keep them in jail. You can’t have it both ways.

      • There’s also the matter that BGCs are utterly and completely ineffective at accomplishing their stated purpose: to keep firearms out of the hands of “prohibited persons”.

    • I agree with background checks, but your point is a valid one. There is simply no reason to trust people in power when it comes to civil liberties, especially the right to keep and bear arms. Just as any denziens in any European nation.

      And it seems with almost every law, no matter how good it may be theoretically, there are always ulterior motives. THe problem is not laws per se, it is the men passing/enforcing them. Its a chicken and a egg thing: there are such men and women in power because people are politically apathetic, but people are politically apathetic because of such men and women.

  6. While I won’t refer to people that want to compromise as “boot lickers”, I still think that they try to appease our enemy. Any student of history knows that appeasement doesn’t work, it just buys you some time until the inevitable demise.
    I think that their heart is in the right place, they are only misguided. They presume that the people trying to deny our rights can be reasoned with, that they will stop if we give them something and so on.
    If majority of gun owners would be unapologetic about their rights to keep and bear arms, we won’t have to call people like Yeager “fringe extremists”. The term is relative. The only reason he is called extremist is because we are all pu***s.
    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

  7. I think the real question is are you actually an absolutist or an “absolutist subject to law”?

    People who believe in the right realize that whatever laws are passed wont affect their ownership, use or trade in arms. A total repeal of the 2nd would have zero effect on true absolutists.

    So sure we can be on same team, but absolutists will be winning the game while the rest argue about the rules.

  8. No different than any other political/cultural/religious association. There’s going to be a certain degree of disagreement within the membership, and a debate as to how much disagreement there can be before it falls “outside” the said association. Anyone who expects complete identity of viewpoints among a significant number of individuals is not being realistic. My 2-cents: anybody who thinks everyone who falls outside of complete identity of viewpoint is “the enemy” is foolish.

  9. If you want to categorize me, place me among those who do not want to live in a world where everyone is like James Yeager. The guy can do, say and be whatever he wants, and I’ll defend his right to do it, but don’t forget the sight of him walking back his comments in the past, trying to calm the crap storm he kicked up.

    • That “walking back” was one thing I regretted him doing. I agreed 100% with his first comments. When the gun community turned against him “for making us look bad”, and he had his permit suspended, he decided, under council, to not fight this battle at this time.

      Anyone not willing to use arms to defend that very right is useless to the gun culture and useless to the American tradition. THAT, my friends, is The Truth About Guns.

      • “Anyone not willing to use arms to defend that very right is useless to the gun culture and useless to the American tradition. THAT, my friends, is The Truth About Guns.”

        Quoted for truth!

  10. How a message is said is as important as what is said. Tone matters. I don’t like it when anyone tells another person how they should think and belittles them for having the audacity to disagree. It is my opinion the above subject matter expert has lost the importance of the message and let his ego run the show.

  11. I will argue that all laws related to firearms be repealed. Why? Because there is no evidence that they reduced the violence in any way.
    Why all of us can’t support this?
    Can some arguing about background check bring any evidence? Why we would support “feel good” measures”?

    • There is the case of reasonable people disagreeing while sharing common goals based on shared principles. And then there is the case of eating our own, and needless infighting and castigating leading to the advancement of the goals of those who have opposing principles.

      Really? “Gun culture” vs. “gun community”?

      It’s not helpful, and only serves to abet our true opponents: those who pursue complete, civil disarmament.

      • “Really? “Gun culture” vs. “gun community”?”

        Yes, it happens daily on this very site. I’ve just never heard it articulated so astutely until James Yeager pointed it out. Now I can stop calling half the people on here “Liberal” and start referring to their true nature…People of the Gun Community.

  12. Isn’t this the guy that got his pistol permit pulled because he issued a challenge on YouTube to anybody/somebody to have a gunfight with him?

    I won’t check back as I know this will be deleted.

    • Pistol permits are perfect example of compromising, or downgrading a right to a privilege. Rights don’t require permits.

      • When I started watching the video, I was afraid I would be in the wrong group because I paid the Government for the right to carry a gun. I am proud to say that I am part of the gun culture according to Mr. Yeager. He does not advocate going on a tax revolt or rioting or refusing to get carry permits. Put simply, it is a matter of your understanding of what the 2nd Amendment right is.

  13. Sorry, I don’t watch videos of people who stick up for Cory07ink’s lies. He AND Yeagar lost all credibility when that crap went down.

  14. Stuff like this is why I hate that guy. He gives gun owners a bad rep, and he acts like he is the be all end all of all things pertaining to guns. “Oh, that’s not a glock 19? Well, it sucks and you suck with it.” Really sir? Soo… Even a block 17 would make me suck? He doesn’t understand the difference in muzzle pressure between a 9mm and a 40sw, and claims all 40s will ruin the gun before a 9mm can, because the pressure difference. I’m not an expert, but looking at very easy to find and simple numbers you can see the pressure isn’t that much of a difference at all! I’m not a 40 guy, hell I have only shot one once, but I’m not so diluted in my intelligence to think what he does.

    Also, according to him, I would be a bootlicker. For what? Not wanting the world to think all gun owners are complete freaking morons? For wanting to show non gun owners that we can be civil and polite?

    Bite my shiney metal ass, James Yogert. I’m tired of you.

    • So he has convictions, “all handguns should be Glocks and all Glocks should be a Glock 19” for example, and you get your panties all ruffled over that? Just disagree dude. He has his opinion and you have yours. Will you stand by your opinions as he stands by his? I don’t see a problem. I wish my auto mechanic was as sure of himself as James is. He just stands there scratching his head.

  15. Just based on a brief sampling of some of his videos, it appears that James Yeager is a pompous jerk.

    I have no need or desire to be a “firearm professional”. I need to be skilled an proficient with a tool that I have chosen to use. In James Yeager’s mind, I am a “rank amateur” and worthy of all manner of opprobrium, merely because I do not choose to eat, drink, sleep, and breathe firearms.

    • I have no desire to be a body builder either but when I hire a personal trainer to get into better shape, I would rather he be intense and driven than someone that hands me a clipboard with a chart on it and says “have at it”, then goes and sits down and starts surfing on an iPhone.

      • Body builder/personal trainer is an interesting analogy. I also would want a professional to be my personal trainer. But that person does not have to be a “body builder”, because my needs and my goals are not professional body building. And if my personal trainer told me that I was merely part of the “Body Building Community” because I come to the gym as a casual person merely attempting to improve my physical fitness and well-being, and that I was harmful to and unwelcome in the “Body Building Culture” because I didn’t eat, drink, breathe, and sleep body building (“Do you feel that, bro? That’s burn, bro. Do you feel the burn?”), I would find a new trainer.

        • Well I did not take it from the video that he wanted everyone to train like a Navy Seal. Or that you have to match personalities. You can be soft spoken and still part of the gun culture by agreeing with Yeager on topic but believing “Well Yeager I probably wouldn’t have said it that way but, okay”.
          It is your core belief that he is using to define what side you are on, not your outward expression of that belief. By showing fear that the left will win because the gun culture expresses truth un-apologetically, the gun community is actually caving to the emotional reactions of the antis. If that is how we win, why have we lost so much in the last century?
          My attitude is, there is no debate on the 2nd amendment. I don’t want to have a “common sense” dialogue with the Progressives. To me, common sense is “no”. They called Republicans “the party of no”. The moderate Republicans took this as a derogatory term. I said not no but HELL NO! Too many bootlickers in the gun community and too many bootlickers in the GOP haven’t helped this Country.
          So you don’t have to like Yeager’s approach but you shouldn’t worry about the perception by the Left. Just tell them “no”.

        • Well I did not take it from the video that he wanted everyone to train like a Navy Seal.

          See some of his other videos; for example, His “press check” rant video, at about 3:15:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmRGmQL_-NE

          “…because I’m a professional firearms instructor. And you, if you’re not, you should be trying to be a professional gunman…”

          (I find this sentiment expressed explicitly and implicitly in other videos of his that I sampled.) While I certainly want to reach a certain level of expertise with a firearm, I neither need nor want to become a “professional gunman”.

          So you don’t have to like Yeager’s approach but you shouldn’t worry about the perception by the Left. Just tell them “no”.

          I couldn’t care less about the perception of the gun-grabbers. But castigating/excommunicating people who have the same goals, per commonly shared principles, but who have sincere disagreements in how to reach those goals, is not helpful.

          There are people who sincerely believe that universal background checks help our cause. They are as wrong as they are sincere, but the solution isn’t to castigate them as the “gun community” and to excommunicate them from the “gun culture”; rather, the solution is to educate them – something that is made orders of magnitude more difficult in the environment created by Yeager’s approach.

        • But press checks are stupid. You just told everyone that you don’t know if you have a chambered round. And how are you going to do a press check in the dark?

          I like to think that I am a logical person. I am new to guns so I don’t have any preconceptions. When I listen to Yeager, most of what he says makes natural sense to me. He doesn’t just say “do it like this because I say so”. He explains why. And when he criticizes other methods, he doesn’t sugar coat it. This is what people hate about him. I think it’s funny. I also appreciate the free information compacted into a 5 minute video that includes the “don’ts” as well as the “dos”.
          Yeager was one of the first instructors to not allow Serpa retention holsters in his class because of all the negligent discharges. People that use those holsters got all butt hurt. They said “If you shoot your leg then you just don’t train enough or you shouldn’t carry a gun”. Those are the people I have no time for.
          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/11/foghorn/serpa-holsters-should-be-discontinued/
          I just can’t think of anything Yeager has ever said where I have thought to myself “that was the stupidest thing I have ever heard”. I think that all the time reading the comments to his videos.

        • I agree that press checks are stupid. They have nothing to do with the sentimemt I quoted, regarding everyone aspiring to be a “professional gunman”.

        • You don’t have to be a professional gunman but it really isn’t that hard to handle a gun professionally if you try.
          The opposite of professional gun handling is sloppy gun handling and I don’t think that should be personally tolerated.

        • The opposite of professional gun handling is sloppy gun handling and I don’t think that should be personally tolerated.

          “Professional gunman” vs. “sloppy gun handling” is a false dilemma. There are not two, binary options; rather, there is a spectrum of expertise – just as with everything else that requires expertise.

          One can be a novice gunman, and be perfectly safe handling a firearm, using nothing more than the 4 cardinal rules. Beyond being a novice, one can basic proficiency. Beyond basic proficiency, one can have intermediate or expert skill. Or one can be a master – the creme de la creme of proficiency.

          Being a “professional”, regardless of proficiency level, means that one earns money/makes a living using that skill. I’m not in the military, I’m not in law enforcement. I’m not a security guard. I’m not a professionally competitive shooter. I will never be a “professional gunman”, nor do I necessarily aspire to an expert/master level of proficiency. Such aspiration requires time, resources, and effort that I would rather devote to things that are more important to me than attaining expert/master-level proficiency with a firearm.

          I can, however, comport myself with professionalism, regardless of my degree of proficiency, in my use of a firearm.

  16. You can’t “get along” with people who want to affect your life regardless of how insignificant that affect may be. I’d love to just “get along” with everyone as long as everyone else stops trying to force along me.

  17. I watch James Yeager’s videos from time to time, and I cant get over the impression that every time he sees news about a DGU and immediately think “next time they’ll pick my house I know it, yes next time, then I’ll get to really talk about how right I am.” He just strikes me as the guy who leaves his house hoping someone will pick a fight with him so he gets to show off his tactics and blow their head off. If that day comes and he really is looking for a fight he will get his chance to be judged by a jury of his peers just like the rest of us.

    While in my opinion, he is just an arrogant blowhard; even arrogant blowhards have a right to keep and bear arms and even complete knuckle dragging trolls like James Yeager do not deserve to be robbed/assaulted or killed and deserve every legal means available to them to prevent that from happening. I say that without any if’s and’s but’s or’s etc. Assholes do not deserve to die or be stripped of their fundamental rights just because they are assholes. If you dont like him, dont invite him out to dinner/beers, dont support his youtube channel, dont go to his classes or buy his stuff.

    Someone said it perfectly above, people like James Yeager may by more outspoken and vocal, and more in the public eye, but make no mistake, no matter how much we “compromise” or try and make friends with them, offer token sacrifices etc, the Antis hate all of us who own guns… ALL OF US. Just because you dont wear it on your sleave like James Yeager, they hate you just as much, they just havent dealt with the James Yeager types yet so they leave you alone. So proceed with caution.

    That is all.

    • Absolutely agree, Colion Noir did a video a while back talking about different types of people who carry a gun, one of these types was the “Wish a Motherfvcker would” guy. I imagined while watching this, he was modeling it after JY.

  18. 2A says nothing about guns. It uses the larger term, “arms.” “Arms” in this day and age includes suitcase nukes, Stinger missiles and weaponized anthrax. There are people who are so stuck on the phrase “shall not be infringed” they will argue that the average citizen should be able to “keep and bear” WMD. I can’t agree with that. Also, the RTKABA has already been greatly infringed. It’s a done deal. That train has sailed! The absolutists are arguing a moot point. There will never be a forseeable time in the future that will not be true. However, if gun owners keep acting like “gun nuts,” there is a forseeable time where we won’t have any gun rights at all.

    I still think 2A and the Heller decision gives us great backing for gun rights today. But it is not enough. God and the Framers will not swoop down and shield us from oppression. We need to pull together on positions we can prevail with in this day and age or we will lose it all. We are not “bootlicking” by working within the same Constitutional system 2A is a part of.

    • “There are people who are so stuck on the phrase “shall not be infringed” they will argue that the average citizen should be able to “keep and bear” WMD”
      That is a false argument and used mostly by antis to shut you down when you argue that there should be no restriction. Let’s not forget that before 1968 there was no restriction and people did not buy WMDs.
      Not sure if you are not one of the “buters” 🙂

      • You do not improve your credibility by school-yard-like name calling. I am not interested in what people did or did not do before 1968. I am interested in what people are obviously planning to do today and tomorrow. Also, don’t you agree we are already way past “infringed?” Do you really believe we would ever get back to “not infringed” in anything but a TEOTWAWKI scenario? Not gonna happen.

        • I had no intention of name calling as it doesn’t further my argument. As you see above I meant it as a joke. Sorry if it offended you.
          The fact that we are past infringement is no reason to accept more. As in any fight, the attitude is important. If we accept defeat this easy, our future is not bright, we will lose everything indeed. I think that a lot of people hold this against the “let’s try to compromise” crowd.

        • That is where I have to respectfully disagree. Except perhaps in a totalitarian society, more change occurs with negotiation and compromise than it does with digging in to inflexible positions. The reason we are infringed now, and will probably always be, is that too much of the gun community doesn’t understand how that works and so we lose out. The antis work the system better than we do. “That which does not bend must break.”

          The strict Constitutionalists will still be picketing with “shall not infringe” signs when our last gun freedom is voted away. It has happened elsewhere and it will happen here if we don’t wise up.

      • “Let’s not forget that before 1968 there was no restriction”

        The NFA was passed in 1934. Gun control laws enacted by state and local governments have existed since the ratification of the Constitution.

  19. Gun guru James Yeager? Really? Why? Because (presumably) he owns a lot of guns and has a Youtube channel? I sure as hell can’t see any real reason to seek out his advice. Yeager is a dime-a-dozen HSLD wannabe operator with a big mouth and not much else. I was neutral on him before but keeps digging and digging…

    • That’s personal opinion (and I agree), but that doesnt preclude him from having the same rights protected by 2A that you or I or anyone else.

      Once you start picking who does and who doesnt there isnt any turning back.

      • I’m not debating whether or not we should enjoy the same protection, I was just taking issue with RF calling him a gun guru. Based on his previous videos and daring people to fly out and fight him (SAY IT TO MAH FACE!!!), among other things, I don’t understand why anyone would train with this guy or look up to him. He’s not doing us any favors.

        • “I’m not debating whether or not we should enjoy the same protection…”

          Yes you did right here at the end of your comment

          “…He’s not doing us any favors.”

          That right there means essentially “we would be better off without people like him” It is at best a begrudging acceptance that he gets to have the same rights you do. So if thats not what you meant you should be more careful in picking your words.

        • You have nothing else to do today? Just because I said “he’s not doing us any favors” does not somehow imply I want to get rid of him or take away his rights or do anything. I don’t see how you made that jump. I pretty much said the guy is an a-hole, I’m surprised that anybody would pay to train with him or listen to what he says. He can keep his commando training company and his guns, I never said he can’t. I was just saying he’s not a good 2A advocate, that’s all. So don’t assume or make up things which I didn’t say.

        • “You have nothing else to do today?”

          Clearly nothing better than what you have to do… I’m out.

    • You are not even mentioning half of James Yeager’s resume. Hickok45 owns a lot of guns and has a YouTube channel. TheYankeeMarshal owns a lot of guns and has a YouTube channel. One might refer to them as gun Gurus.

  20. I find most forms of absolutism to be ridiculous, and frankly the “I support the Second Amendment, but ..” meme is high up on that list. The implication is that unless you support having zero regulations on gun ownership/sales, you are an enemy. This is patently ridiculous. You can’t buy milk at the grocery store without bumping into half a dozen standards, regulations, and taxes. So the idea that, simply by saying that you think certain regulations with limited scope serve a function (we can certainly argue about whether the function is itself worthwhile), you are somehow a traitor to the cause is idiotic. There are plenty of regulations that, while perhaps not serving their stated purpose, nonetheless serve A purpose. For example, do background checks prevent criminals from getting guns? Clearly no. Do they relieve gun stores of the liability for choosing whom to sell gun to? Yes, and in today’s legal climate probably allows them to continue to exist. By meme-standards, that apparently means I’m an anti, which couldn’t be farther from the truth.

    At an even more basic level, if you find two people on planet Earth who agree 100% on absolutely every subject, I’ll show you two people who are lying their butts off. Nobody agrees on everything, that’s life. The entire point of politics is getting people on your team and pushing towards your common goals. If you “can’t abide people” who don’t completely agree with your views at all times, don’t be surprised when there’s nobody on your team.

    • “You can’t buy milk at the grocery store without bumping into half a dozen standards, regulations, and taxes.”
      And you don’t find that disturbing?

      It is much easier to agree on principles. The principle here is that should be no regulation and no negotiation if we are to correctly read “shall not be infringed”. Exactly as we expect to not be any regulation on our 1A or other listed in BOR.
      The question is if you agree or not.
      The moment that you don’t agree then you open up the negotiation phase. Then there is a matter only of negotiation skills if you keep your right or not.
      Honestly, I just don’t want to leave my rights subject to negotiation skills of whoever will be my “spoke person”.
      That is why I can’t understand why we want to open that door.
      And if that door was open by mistake some time ago, we should work hard to close it. Because otherwise is a matter on when not what will happen.
      While we may want to draw the line to WMDs other may want to draw it to muskets. For me they are all the same. It is just a matter of degree.

      • Two things:

        1) No, I do not find it disturbing that there are regulations regarding what temperature my milk has to be pasteurized to, or what hygiene standards have to be observed. I like raw milk, but there is no way I am going to trust that some people I don’t know, in a place I don’t know, are using “common sense” when it comes to keeping my food safe. If I’m going to buy raw milk, it’s going to be from someone I know and trust, in a facility I know and trust. Since that can’t happen in a grocery store, I appreciate that those standards are there.

        2) We DO expect there to be regulation on our first amendment rights. Ritual sacrifice of animals as part of a religious ceremony are not covered under freedom of religion, nor would be knowingly printing false information under freedom of the press, nor would be yelling fire in a crowded theatre. These would be animal cruelty, libel, and reckless endangerment respectively. To paraphrase from Heller, the fact that you have a right does not mean that you get to exercise that right however you choose, whenever you choose, and it whatever manner you choose. Your rights extend only as far as your exercise of that right does not infringe on the rights of others. For example, do you have a right to own your own Patriot missile battery? The overwhelming majority of people would not interpret the 2A that way. How about a machine gun? Many people would argue no, I would argue that while they should be available, their sale deserves an extra level of scrutiny. If you think the availability of an M240 at Walmart with no background check isn’t going to cause a whole bunch of problems, you’re kidding yourself.

        • Let me explain why I think that you are wrong.
          #1. Regulations do nothing to prevent bad things from happening. I think that grocery chains will still follow the best practices since they don’t want the publicity that they sell bad products. If you want an example, check the ecoli infections that are still happening even with this regulations. This is a false sense of security. Actually you may say that they protect the sellers since they followed the gov regulations and as such can not be held responsible if sh*t happens.
          #2 There are no laws that “prevent” free speech. There are only laws that punish the people that caused injuries to others regardless of what rights they exercised. For firearms we already have that – assaulting somebody with a firearm is illegal. What you described are clear examples of injuring others. The current legal system (even without regulations) give those injured recourse. Along the same lines: do you think that if Walgreens will sell coke everybody will go out and buy it? Do you think that is something inherently wrong with owning a machine gun? Do you assume that people are guilty just because they own something you disapprove off?

          The Statists take advantage of people that think like you, pushing more regulations that will keep us “safe”. As we know, you can’t regulate morals. There are no laws that prevent people from being a**holess and criminals. There are only laws to deal with consequences. For laws to be effective they must be followed by a large majority of people. These people will follow the law not because they know about it, but because they have inherent knowledge of what is morally wrong and what is not. The fact that we don;t go out in a murderous rampage is not because of the law, it is because we consider that to be morally wrong.

        • “The Statists take advantage of people that think like you, pushing more regulations that will keep us “safe”.”

          Thats why you need an educated and rational populace that can vote effectively and be proactive, putting freaks like this in their place, telling them to STFU, sit in the corner and put on the conical-shaped dunce hat.

          “As we know, you can’t regulate morals. There are no laws that prevent people from being a**holess and criminals”

          I have no problem going after the low hanging fruit, provided it doesn’t run into Constitutional infringement territory.

          It is simply libertarian and anarchist lala-land unicorn wishful thinking and naivity to believe that people could function without any sort of regulations or laws. I could function and be civil without laws, so can most people (and probably you), but not everybody can, thats for sure. This is why the Articles of Confederation were rendered moot and defunct.

    • I agree with what you said.

      I support effective background checks and barring certain segments of the population against being able to purchase firearms, and if they intend on purchasing them in the future, there should be loopholes for them to jump through. There should be NCIS access to private sellers for doing private sales, and I am confident that gun sellers will have the common sense to use it, unless they want their ass in a sling for selling to a prohibited person.

      And no, just to reiterate, I dont support magazine capacity limits or even the restrictions on SBRs, suppressors and the like. Those laws aren’t based on any kind of reasonable concern whatsoever.

      Slippery slope concerns aside, I know that we can draw a thick battle line through the western front-esque trenches, shouting “none shall pass!”. The absolutism is metaphorical equivalent to Operation Market Garden or Navy SEAL airport seizures in Panama; half cocked yielding bad results.

      But the absolutism will not get anybody anywhere. We are in a period in our history where the gun culture reversed the momentum of the post-sandy hook moral panic mongering and have largely reversed de facto bans on the concealed carry of guns. This is a very good thing for our rights. Its time to start capitalizing on these gains and not do anything half-cocked.

      Yeager’s “if this goes one more inch, im going to start killing people” nonsense simply aided in the stereotype of gun owners and was a public relations nightmare. It made rational gun owners who are willing to fight tooth and nail on the soapbox first, and from the cartridge box when all other options have been exhausted, look really stupid. Good for him for being a successful businessman. That doesn’t mean I have to like him or view him as a equal peer to somebody like Pannone.

      Not to mention his other antics about “press checks are for amateurs”, the dueling offer, breaking of spines, and other such idiotic ramblings. My experience in the matter of firearms related business far surpasses his, Ill quickly say without any hesitation, so he can kiss my lily white behind. And if I met him in person, he would quickly be reminded about his flaws and wouldn’t do shite about it, just be forced to stand there taking it like a mook.

      I cant stand that guy.

  21. We-el, you’re not wrong in my case.

    We may not agree on all points, but neither do I always agree with my female counterpart or parents; nonetheless we remain allies.

    I consider you and I to be similarly allied.

  22. RF, the difference between you and Yeager isn’t that you are right and he is wrong or vice-versa. Let’s face it, there’s no empirical right and wrong here. The issue is divergent opinions, and you are both entitled to your own.

    The real difference between the two of you is that Yeager is a no-talent, bald-headed, loudmouthed, no-balls-run-away-from-the-Taliban moron with a massive inferiority complex coupled with a room temperature IQ and you are a pro-2A gun blogger.

    That’s pretty much it.

  23. He’s nothing but a coward who abandoned his buddies in a fight.

    If he is of the “gun culture”; then I guess I’m a compromising boot licker or something.

      • Yes there is. Not only did he completely fail under fire, but then he had the nerve to write a bullshit personal AAR blaming everyone except himself for his failures. He wanted to go an play operator at war without being qualified to do so and got men much better than himself killed.

  24. What we need are more people that can agree to disagree with Yeager in a polite and professional manner without resorting to name calling and mudslinging.

  25. What a self-serving, one-man circle-jerk this guy is. I can’t take anything that comes out of his mouth seriously.

    Just because you own a lot of guns and make videos doesn’t make you the absolute gate-keeper of firearms freedom and opinions.

    Kind of reminds me of the saying about how the loudest voice in the room says the least,
    or is the weakest. That’s exactly what we have hear.

    Wannabe firearms gurus are usually the loudest and the most opinionated. I prefer the professional, quiet, knowledgeable ones who will tactfully share info and opinions, without getting and yelling in your face and using hand-motions towards your face.

    • I used to think like you do until I watched the first video. I only started watching them after seeing a video that some idiot posted called “James Yeager is a Coward”.
      I watched it and the only thing I got from it was, people must really hate Yeager to say stupid things and fail to prove it.
      After watching the first video, “1911s Suck”, I watched about 5 in a row and I was laughing so loud that my wife came to see what was so funny. I showed her one video and she said “He sounds just like you!”.
      I just appreciate reason without all the P.C.B.S. That is very refreshing in this day and age.
      BTW, not all 1911s suck. Yeager says that if you take time to watch and learn.

  26. ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A JERK!

    Yaeger serves his purpose. It’s rare that he gets touted out by the anti’s. Probably 95% of his page views are gun guys, if not more. I don’t think he does anything other than provide entertainment.

  27. There is no doubt in my mind that anti-gunners are insane.

    Some I’ve converted others I have dis-associated myself. The last thing I want or need is that negative influence in my life.

    Dialog with them is not productive. Facts make no impression. When that happens I say goodby. Sometimes I wish them an encounter with a really bad guy, like a murderer or mugger. Unfortunately, I do that silently and with guilt (i.e. the reason for the silence.)

    I always tell them why I no longer want them in my life. Tell them if they come to their senses to let me know, otherwise leave me alone.

    Not that I think my friendship is all that valuable, but id do feel strongly about who I associate with, and anti-gunners are not them.

  28. I wholeheartedly believe that total gun rights freedom is the goal. However, you can’t give the ball to your running back every single play and expect to win the game, no matter how fast he is. Eventually, you have to have a strategy. You may have to settle for a yard or two here and there simply to guarantee a first down. THEN go for a TD.

    • Much more eloquently put than 90% of the people on here. The football analogy captures the essence because in no place does it say you should accept going backwards, or allow a sack here and there to make the defense respect you more. No you grab the football and jam it down the throat of the defense. Sometimes that means you only pick up a yard (that congresswoman who won Gabby’s seat yesterday that everyone was all pissy about) and sometimes it means you find a seam and take it to the house (Heller).

  29. I don’t know, I like Yaeger. He doesn’t dick around, and he seems like he’s serious about educating people. I took fighting pistol mobile, but it wasn’t with him. His instructors though? The didn’t care about any of your details, they wanted results. And I kinda liked that. They weren’t concerned with excuses, they wanted you to leave that class ready to fight with your pistol, and since we’re talking about something that is really, really, really serious, I’ll take that sort of attitude. Shooting people isn’t a game, and his no-bullshit, dead serious attitude is appreciated in that context.

    He won’t ever teach a 3-gun class, I’ll tell you that. But if you wanted to learn how to really fight with your gun, there are very few places that can teach you better.

    • “But if you wanted to learn how to really fight with your gun, there are very few places that can teach you better.”

      Serious question: Does Yeager’s students have a DGU win-loss record from the street you can point to? I’m not talking about HSLD operators going into contracting or weekend wannabes, I mean regular folks like the rest of us who have been tested the in The Real Test?

      Because I know quite a few folks that I’d MUCH, MUCH, MUCH rather take a class with than Yeager (for a number of reasons)…Craig Douglas or Rob Pincus, for example. But on the topic of “real results,” I offer Tom Givens.

      Tom’s students have a real-world “win” record in real violent street encounters, and somehow Tom manages to achieve results without being a first class dillhole on the Internet and alienating have the people he might otherwise count as “customer base” or “compatriot.”

      I’ve never taken a class from Tom, so this is not fanboi-ism (per se). I’d like to someday, actually. Seems like a, er, straight shooter. And you can’t argue with results. What and how he teaches has saved people’s lives.

      I’ll take that over Yeager’s blustering as an advertising endorsement any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

      Here’s an interview with Tom Givens. It is very much worth listening to, and I cannot help but see the contrast between him and Yeager.

      http://ballisticradio.com/2013/05/14/podcast-ballistic-radio-episode-10-may-12-2013/

      Of course, your training $$, your choice.

  30. Considering I still get the “THERE’S NO NEED TO OWN A SILENCER!” BS at the local ranges, yea I would say there are two different firearm camps. One that is pro everything, and the butters.

    • It isnt pro everything vs the but’ers… Its people who own guns, and people who are gun rights supporters.

      The first group likes their own guns, and maybe even accepts that you or other people own guns (as long you behave, or only own certain types, or dont bring politics into or whatever), but will sell you down the river the second they think that you are jeopardizing their firearms rights. The latter group stands up for firearms rights, even when the “owners (or but’ers as some call them)” have stabbed them in the back. And yes there are pompous assholes in both camps, but they have just as much of a right to be at the table as the others.

  31. While I don’t think I could “get along” with James Yaeger, I am naturally suspicious of “butters”, especially if they are in the political arena. The “butters” have tricked us too many times for too many years.

  32. This guy is a moron. Weird religious nonsense, threats of violence, loose grasp of American political structures, loose grasp of the legal system… he’s a nutcase. He may know guns and gunfighting, but holy shit is he an asshole. He gives us all a bad name.

  33. Yeager is such a dooshbag he doesn’t even realize how much he is, he literally believes he is some sort of demigod and a industry beacon and societal important figure worthy of praise and status.

    He is absolutely the WORST kind of guy representing guns for ANY OF our spectrum. Gun rights would literally be better served having the Montana Freemen or Posse Comitatus or freaking any of them… at least they make no bones about their side on the spectrum and promote their views unabashedly to the public…. This guy acts like he’s some sort of genius and supersoldier at the same time – he is quite literally a joke of a gun guy and politically he sounds like he could not pass a GED test.

    I know I am a nobody, and further know that when I was younger, I will admit I desperately wanted to be “famous” and “be a somebody” . Thankfully The Good Lord both humbled me with plentiful gifts of humility and then gave me the wisdom to realize what is important in life and what is important to me… this guy needs not only some humble humility, but desperately needs some education and brain evolution because he’s about as intelligent and world-relevant as a three dollar bill bet by The Situation at a casino close to Jersey Shore.

    • I would say, rough landing but right airport.

      Can someone please say why he is wrong instead of just calling him a jerk?

      He has accurately described two groups that exist here on TTAG.

  34. I don’t think you’re wrong.

    I am ambivalent about Yeager. But at the end of the day he’s nothing if not a bit of a horse’s rear. It’s just how he is.

  35. Given that our legal system supposedly operates on the belief that all citizens are innocent until proven guilty, than we should NOT need background checks. A simple database of those who by statute are denied the right to purchase or own a firearm which can be accessed from anywhere for free on the internet, for any purpose should suffice. The burden of proof is on the state. The keeping of records serves no proveable purpose as far as I can tell.

  36. Meh…+1 Ralph. Yeager seems to have a complex. The kind of a##hole who brags about the size of his manhood but never had a good looking woman. But I agree with a whole lot of the take no prisoners thing. Yeager lost me on the stupid 40 caliber bit. A real man can handle a bit of snappinessLOL

  37. All you have to do is consider any “gun control law” passed by the Fed, State or Locality, then look up a definition of the word “infringed” in the Dictionary of your choice, then ask yourself,”Does this Law satisfy the language of the Second Amendment, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’?” The answer you get will make it clear to you.

    Insofar as James Yeager, he just represents a point on the Bell Curve of pro Second Amendment supporters. He might be too aggressive or intimidating for some people in his zeal, but he expresses a point of view that fits in the expected spectrum of opinion. Not one of my favorites, but he makes a valid contribution to the cause. He’s the counterpoint to those who think there’s some sort of validity to a “little bit of infringement” or such a thing as a “little bit of acceptable violation of the Constitution”.

  38. Isn’t this the guy who was telling everyone to grab their rifle and get ready to go to war when he thought that Obama had outlawed the AR-15 by executive order?

  39. I agree with James on this Farago…I’ve never understood your fear (TTAG’s fear) of giving “ammo” to the fake-ass Anti-Gun PR group Moms Demand Action for Gunsense or whatever the hell they’re calling themselves this week.

    Women have the right to vote and Blacks aren’t slaves anymore…do you think either gives a shit defending their naturally endowed Rights? Does either worry about giving “ammo” to the otherside?

    When you let the Anti-Gun crowd dictate the game and make the rules…YOU LOSE!

    • Its not about playing by their rules, its that their bar is a pretty damn low one to low crawl under and we shouldn’t try to make ours lower.

  40. I watch about half of Yeager’s videos. He has a lot of good info regarding tactics, self defense, practice, etc. But I will never put a dime in his pocket, and it is because of this kind of crap. I absolutely believe in the second amendment, and the natural right to self defense. But it’s lunacy to assert that “PC boot lickers” endanger our gun rights. Message matters. The way we frame the issues matters. We need bright, thoughtful, articulate people to put the message forward. Threatening to start a war before you even understand what the President is proposing to do endangers gun rights. You can deliver a nuanced message which is likely to be well received by thoughtful people without compromising rights and principals. Rob Pincus and Massad Ayoob are much better ambassadors for the cause than this nimrod. I say all of this as a 2A absolutist.

    • One other thought: let us suppose that I trained under Yeager and then was involved in a DGU. As part of my defense I put forward that I received training from an expert that gave me instruction as to the use of lawful self defense and the practical application thereof. Let us further suppose that one of the jurors is familiar with Yeager. Would that be good for me? If the prosecutor showed one of his YouTube videos to the jury (may not be admissible, but humor me) how would that look? I worry about otherwise reasonable people who know nothing about guns getting their initial exposure to some of these issues through this clown. This crap is not good for us.

    • The irony is lost of james for saying this, of course. It is the outspoken dimwits like him that screw it up for everybody else, especially when he makes another “pack your bags” video that claims to be the speaker for everything that is gun and glorious. Anti-gunners dont need “help” with their guilt by association logical fallacies.

  41. As soon as I see Yeager I just tune him out.. That fiasco with his call to arms made responsible literate gun owners look like idiots and shed a light on just how dense that guy is…

  42. The question is: Are you a member of the gun community or the gun culture?
    The question is not: Can we get along?
    The gun community can get along with anybody, even the antis. That is the problem.
    The gun culture can get along with anybody, as long as you don’t infringe on our rights.

  43. “Am I wrong?”

    No!

    What is wrong, scratch that, what is pointless is trying to have a dialogue with someone to convince them of your point of view or to come to a consensus with someone else, by talking to them in a way that assures they either can’t hear you or worse, will be defensive. The culture and the community need to talk to each other with respect and listen to understand why you view things differently. It would only advance the movement.

  44. Were only on the same side if we help each other and not damage our goals. Yeager’s attitude is damaging. We want peaceful change, and respect for our rights and selves. Yeager may have the a similar goal, but he is a lone wolf with a lot of blind followers.

    I used to watch some of his vids, but unlike so many, judged him on what he presented himself to be.

    He may prove above average on the battlefield(God help us it comes to that), though also likely leave you to die. On the peaceful front, he does more harm than good.

    • We all want peaceful change. Yeager has a video stating just that, and it wasn’t an apology video. But here is the difference between a gun rights advocate and/or activist, and any other civil rights activists. We had gun rights before, then all the “gun community” folks compromised them away because the “gun culture” was reduced to the back country regions. Whereas black people did not have the rights that they now share with every American.
      Think about what it was like for a black man in the South 50+ years ago and compare that with the gun culture 50+years ago. Civil rights for blacks have progressed while the RKBA has been infringed upon. Like Joe Biden said “Their wan’a put y’all back in chains”. What do you think the reaction would be, and rightly so, if Republicans actually did want to segregate the country again?
      Now you know how I feel about gun rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *