James Yeager is a Disgrace! VIDEO - Page 7
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > James Yeager is a Disgrace! VIDEO

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-13-2013, 06:32 PM   #61
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,781
Liked 1652 Times on 986 Posts
Likes Given: 361

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post
So...we are no longer innocent OR sane...until WE prove WE are both?

Hmm... Funny, I always thought the burden of proof was on the government...not the citizen.

But Dave says it's ok fellas...someone call the Bar Assocoation and let them know that 2 centuries of judicial precedence just went out the window...because Dave says it's OK!

Come on Dave...your smarter than that...right?

Tack
Tackleberry Esquire I presume?

It is against Federal law for someone with serious mental issues to purchase or possess a firearm. He proved to someone's satisfaction that he was mentally ineligible to own firearms. Now he must prove that he is not crazy....that will be a long hard row to hoe.

You must prove you are not a criminal to work with children, you must prove to a traffic cop that you are not drunk. Explain the difference, councillor.
__________________

"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan

Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 06:32 PM   #62
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
m72law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 1,316
Liked 143 Times on 83 Posts
Likes Given: 766

Default

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038616_John_Noveske_mysterious_death_car_crash.htm l#ixzz2HsjbtnCn

__________________
m72law is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 06:39 PM   #63
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,165
Liked 5001 Times on 2426 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drvsafe View Post
I am trying to get a sense of where you sit on this, so I have just a few questions if you don't mind Tack:

1. Do you think he Should he have left the original video up and as it was inits original form?

2. Do you think it's reasonable that someone would post a video like that?

3. Do you think ANY action at all would be necessary at all of the part of his state or local LE?
1. His choice, I have no opinion on the revised video. The original video was over the top but made no specific threat.

2. Responsible is a "subjective"'question...I don't think it helps the cause BUT I also don't think is was a credible threat.

3. If the Government thinks Mr. James video was criminal they need to prosecute him for it...or attempt to, and remove his permit legally.

The unilateral punishment of an American citizen WITHOUT DUE PROCESS is where my objection lies.

We do not treat accused child molesters like this, we do not violate constitutional rights without DUE PROCESS.

Tack
__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 06:52 PM   #64
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
drvsafe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,636
Liked 212 Times on 169 Posts
Likes Given: 116

Default

1. I think you DO have an opinion, I am not chiding you for it nor am I going to vehemently oppose it, just asking you for it. And most will agree, there was a clear threat, not aimed at any specific individual, but it was clear, Tack.

2. I asked if it was reasonable not responsible...

3. I think that the laws we have on the books are not current to the world we live in. Not that we need new ones, but we do need a more modern approach to enforcing them. Does that mean big brother has a right to watching the internet and should be allowed to do as they please? No. but if a threat is made, they should have a method to vet out that threat. And what is wrong with preventing this man from carrying a firearm until such a threat can either be squashed or verified? No one arrested him. They took away his ability to CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED after he made a threatening video and posted it for all to see...one can be judged as being a bit of a nut bar after watching that video...so let them qualify his mental fitness. Isn't that what we all want, the nut bars to NOT have access to firearms?!?!? Let's see if he in fact is a nut bar or a patriotic American that is just a bit overzealous.

See something, say something. It could save a life. Maybe it already did...

__________________
SIG 1911 .45 ACP
SIG P229R 9mm
Beretta BU9 Nano 9mm
Beretta 84FS .380 ACP
Ruger MKIII 22/45 Target .22LR

PWS (Primary Weapons Systems) MK114 5.56
drvsafe is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 07:04 PM   #65
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,165
Liked 5001 Times on 2426 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default

So...it's now acceptable to skirt Due Process...for our own good of course?

By that logic I guess you'd also be ok with DHS going to door to door and collecting our privately owned firearms...I mean, as long as it for our good!

Genius...

Tack

Quote:
Originally Posted by drvsafe View Post
1. I think you DO have an opinion, I am not chiding you for it nor am I going to vehemently oppose it, just asking you for it. And most will agree, there was a clear threat, not aimed at any specific individual, but it was clear, Tack.

2. I asked if it was reasonable not responsible...

3. I think that the laws we have on the books are not current to the world we live in. Not that we need new ones, but we do need a more modern approach to enforcing them. Does that mean big brother has a right to watching the internet and should be allowed to do as they please? No. but if a threat is made, they should have a method to vet out that threat. And what is wrong with preventing this man from carrying a firearm until such a threat can either be squashed or verified? No one arrested him. They took away his ability to CARRY A FIREARM CONCEALED after he made a threatening video and posted it for all to see...one can be judged as being a bit of a nut bar after watching that video...so let them qualify his mental fitness. Isn't that what we all want, the nut bars to NOT have access to firearms?!?!? Let's see if he in fact is a nut bar or a patriotic American that is just a bit overzealous.

See something, say something. It could save a life. Maybe it already did...
__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 07:05 PM   #66
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,781
Liked 1652 Times on 986 Posts
Likes Given: 361

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post
1. His choice, I have no opinion on the revised video. The original video was over the top but made no specific threat.

2. Responsible is a "subjective"'question...I don't think it helps the cause BUT I also don't think is was a credible threat.

3. If the Government thinks Mr. James video was criminal they need to prosecute him for it...or attempt to, and remove his permit legally.

The unilateral punishment of an American citizen WITHOUT DUE PROCESS is where my objection lies.

We do not treat accused child molesters like this, we do not violate constitutional rights without DUE PROCESS.

Tack
I suppose that they should have prosecuted him over the weekend?

Now that is swift justice.

I guess by your standards a man could profess to wanting to burn the courthouse, walk down the street with a can of gasoline and a torch, but couldn't be stopped until he lit up the joint?
__________________

"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan

Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 07:16 PM   #67
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,165
Liked 5001 Times on 2426 Posts
Likes Given: 1601

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainfire View Post
Tackleberry Esquire I presume?

It is against Federal law for someone with serious mental issues to purchase or possess a firearm. He proved to someone's satisfaction that he was mentally ineligible to own firearms. Now he must prove that he is not crazy....that will be a long hard row to hoe.

You must prove you are not a criminal to work with children, you must prove to a traffic cop that you are not drunk. Explain the difference, councillor.
Chain...the concept is "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" NOT "punish now while we figure it out".

You submit to a BG Check "before" working with children just like you do to buy a firearm or get a CHL.

You do not need to prove to the traffic cop that your sober...he needs to prove that your not.

I know...these are crazy concepts because they require Government to follow the rules and deny your liberal urge to react emotionally and do something.

Tack
__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 07:16 PM   #68
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
drvsafe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,636
Liked 212 Times on 169 Posts
Likes Given: 116

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post
So...it's now acceptable to skirt Due Process...for our own good of course?

By that logic I guess you'd also be ok with DHS going to door to door and collecting our privately owned firearms...I mean, as long as it for our good!

Genius...

Tack
Wrong Tack. I speak form my own personal experience. In my state, when I want to purchase a firearm I am asked a few questions. One of them is regarding my belonging to any organization that has ever attempted to overthrow our government. Not that he was calling for an overthrow of our government, but his comments were volatile to say the least. Also I am required to sign a release of my mental health records. There is a reason why they want my mental health records, and that is to confirm that I AM NOT A NUT BAR.

Again, this video is either from; a certified nut bar going ballistic or an overzealous American that is fed up and was just venting. Who is to know? Do we have to wait and find out? What would your response be if (god forbid) there was a shooting incident involving a person that aired a video threat similar to the one we are discussing? How could you defend him then? The signs were there. He posted a video for the WORLD to see!!

Please Tack, again don't equate his CCW permit being suspended with him being arrested, because he isn't. He will appeal that suspension tomorrow probably. And with all due respect, why would his lawyer have suggested he take the video down? I can tell you 100% it wasn't because of the poor production quality.


IMO, if someone is perceived as a threat, either to themselves or to others, they should NOT have access to firearms. Then let's vet out the perceived threat and see if it's real or not...
__________________
SIG 1911 .45 ACP
SIG P229R 9mm
Beretta BU9 Nano 9mm
Beretta 84FS .380 ACP
Ruger MKIII 22/45 Target .22LR

PWS (Primary Weapons Systems) MK114 5.56
drvsafe is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 07:43 PM   #69
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,709
Liked 21996 Times on 12402 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

i am in complete agreement with Tack on this. my opinion of the original video, is this, so my position is clear. his opinions in a sense are similar to mine and i do somewhat agree with them, but his delivery and poor choice of words were what i disagree with. i also remember just not too long ago Ted Nugent making some of the same remarks and comments even directed at our present administration which brought him to the attention of the Secret Service, but was not relieved of his CC permit. what is the difference between James Yeager and Ted Nugent? IMO both were exercising their 1st amendment right of freedom of speach.

but like Tack the part that really bothers me is that they felt the need to suspend his CC permit because of this video, without due process. if they felt the justification in doing so, then WHY was he not arrested and charged? that's what bothers me the most.

i alos have seen several of his videos. i see him somewhat as a zealot, but not a nut case. he is a little over the top, but then again haven't we said the same about Ted Nugent on his stance on gun control and gun rights? i think many of us have even used the word passionate in describing Ted Nugent!

__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
wizard63 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2013, 07:57 PM   #70
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,155
Liked 5734 Times on 3360 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drvsafe View Post
IMO, if someone is perceived as a threat, either to themselves or to others, they should NOT have access to firearms. Then let's vet out the perceived threat and see if it's real or not...
I'm sure that i do NOT trust our current government to do that without due process.


Heck, they could lock me up for threatening an endangered (in some places, like my state) species.
__________________

Dead Bears, the only good kind.

orangello is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Favorite/Best James Bond 007 BeyondTheBox The Club House 16 01-01-2013 11:26 PM
Who was the best james bond ???..... LONGHAIR The Club House 21 08-29-2012 05:23 AM
This is a disgrace... snyder77 The Club House 11 07-24-2012 04:16 AM
Acorn prostitute scam with video and text from James O'Keefe BigByrd47119 Politics, Religion and Controversy 7 09-12-2009 12:14 AM
Interesting Video by James Manning Robert NC Politics, Religion and Controversy 0 08-20-2009 01:35 AM