Thursday, January 10, 2013

Jim Yeager Shows Americans Why Banning Assault Guns Is Necessary

My American friends need to watch this video. Be afraid, be very afraid.

I don't know how many people think like this but if it's more than a few thousand there's going to be trouble.

Isn't threatening to kill somebody a crime? Isn't he advocating the overthrow of the democratically elected American government by force? I don't think that's in the Constitution.


  1. well, Larry, let's think critically about this.

    You were already reliably informed by an unimpeachable source that right wing extremist xtians are not about to take up their guns and initiate civil insurrection.

    You're just presenting an outlying, extreme-viewed Christian reactionary as as representative of all gun owners.

    Now if you were a sober, intelligent and non-histrionic blogger like Hemant Mehta who who understands the situation and presents it fairly then you may wish to alter the title of this post.

    Generate by the automated andyboerger babelatronic v1.0.

    1. that's really cute, steve. I hope you showed your mom and your teacher because I think they'll be as impressed as I am.

    2. Actually, Steve, the above video, and your almost-humorous comment, provides me with an opportunity to further clarify just why I object to the type of rhetoric that Larry used in his post about Staver, in insinuating that a large number of christians have armed themselves in preparation for a civil war.

      I fully expect, and hope, that the creator of the video above will at the very least be questioned, and likely be charged, for the comments he made, particularly his last ones. I also suspect that no such action will be taken against Staver.

      Now, someone like Alex Jones, as well as some of the less rational haters of Christianity, and pretty much all things religious (hi Steve!), might suspect that - if I am right in my prediction - it's because the christian right wing political apparatus is so powerful and entrenched that they can protect Staver.

      Most people, including all sensible people, won't suspect that. They will think that the authorities see an important difference between the video above and the transcript Larry ran earlier.

      You are indicating that you DON'T see that difference. You are conflating a video from a man who actually threatens to commit murder - and encourages others to be willing and prepared to do so as well - with a hysterical preacher saying a court ruling would so violate the 'rights' of christians that it could propel them to revolt. You are presenting them as if they are more or less the same thing.

      That is exactly why over-generalizing, jumping to conclusions, demonization of whole groups, insinuations, half truths, etc. etc. are dangerous. They are a bad approach when Staver uses them, when Alex Jones uses them, when Rush Limbaugh uses them - and they are no less bad when Larry uses them. They make it harder for some people (hi Steve) to think straight.

    3. I need a larger data set of politically correct, feel good, accommodationist and poorly thought out phrases to make the babelatronic(TM) more convincing and you appear to be just the person to do this.

      Think of it as a Turing test for, as Pat Condell puts it, ultra-tolerant self-hating multicultural lemmings.

  2. Guns don't fantasize about killing people, gun owners do.


  3. Well, he's a moron. If the US Secret Service and Justice Department who I am certain already know about this video consider his blustery posturing as anything more credible than just that, he'll be having a very long interview with some very nice men in dark suits potentially followed by quick trial and a long period of incarceration. I'm sure that the current process will go that "one more" step that he mentioned and I am 99% certain that the most he will do is make another video to spew his impotent rage into the ether.

    1. I'm no longer convinced that I really understand their thought process so well. I can hope intensely that you're right but there's this growing worry that those sorts of organizations will be happy with something like an apology by this individual while his message has already sent a lot of like minded individuals teetering right on the brink.

      I doubt any of these folks expect to kill anyone (outside of self defense) when they make those purchases, just like I doubt this guy ever expected to be giving such off the handle instructions to gun owners. What's the actual limit on emotional overreactions? Does that limit change as people see things like this video and a lot of more carefully worded rhetoric that fits nicely with it without quite making such obvious mistakes in saying too much?

    2. I note that he was quite careful not to mention any specific person that he was going to kill, he was just going to kill "them".

      I suspect that he has a pretty good understanding of how close he can skate to the edge of the first amendment and laws prohibiting exhortations to violence and murder.

    3. Steve: ... he was just going to kill "them".

      Just for the record: he said, "I'll start killing people" (in case anyone argues that "them" might mean mosquitoes or stray dogs).

  4. Well anger makes people say stuff they don't mean.
    He means to fight a unjust government but its just frustration with dirty tricks by the left wing.
    These gun laws are to be decided by the people and thats why public discussion and political power matters.
    To bypass the congress is to bypass the people and breaking the freedom of the people to rule themselves as they see fit.
    its a spirit of dictatorship .
    Why have a congress if one just bypasses it when one wants?
    Its silly to rob the people of their stuff because of obscure incidents.
    After 9/11 they didn't ban planes. One must put up with the minor incidents for the greater right.
    However this guy should not be saying about killing people as this is not important that much.
    Democracy is ease rule over the people and allow those who don't get their way to have at least had a good chance.
    Takes a Canadian to fix things.

    1. Byers,
      " After 9/11 they didn't ban planes. One must put up with the minor incidents for the greater right."

      They banned box cutters immediately. I know logic doesn't work on you, though. Later, after that planned attack using mixed chemicals, they banned liquid in carry ons.

      So 9 11 was a minor incident. Assault rifles are the geater right, hmm.

      If the NRA had their way, people will carry assault weapons on planes and every kindergartener will have a Glock.

      As for civil war, it's time to admit the gunsuckers and truthers are fascist and one way or the other, they want excuses to masacre people and they will concoct them.

  5. You might think this is the worst thing you've ever seen. Not even close. What's worse are the Sandy Hook truthers who say that Barack Obama arranged the Sandy Hook hoax, to take people's guns. The murdered children are Satanists and are still alive and visited Obama. Their parents were just pretending to cry at their funerals and should be arrested and imprisoned for treason.

    It's time we admit we have a fascist movement and we must do something about it.

  6. Since we're condemning whole groups of people based on one extreme example, would it be ok to paint all biochemists as blithering idiots because of Michael Behe?

    1. The "whole group" that I'm condemning is the group that owns assault guns and is prepared to use them to kill people if they think their "rights" are being violated.

      It's a pretty large group.

  7. There are countless nut-bags like the guy in the video. He's by no means alone, extreme though he is.

  8. This bloke is a former cop. Is he representative of the "good guys with guns" that LaPierre wants to put in every school?

  9. I did a little googling on Yeager. He was a fat cop who went to Iraq as a civilian contractor, i.e. a highly paid mercenary, not a real US soldier.

    In Tennessee, he now runs a paramilitary training school. His antics may be intended to get publicity for his business. Any publicity is good publicity.

    There are photos of his training techniques in which there are photographers downrange, i.e. in the line of fire of many of his students on the gun range. Many gun enthusiasts consider that irresponsible and amateur.

    He has been accused of cowardice due to a firefight in Iraq, during which he allegedly ran and hid in a ditch, while his mortally wounded comrades returned fire at the enemy and his unwounded comrades tended the wounded. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that story. There's a grainy video I don't have time to watch.

    (google Jim Yeager coward) He responds to accusations of cowardice by threatening his accusers with death. You know the kind of thing: 'Come to Tennessee, I'll pay your one-way ticket, you won't need a hotel' etc. Not an exact quote, but he wants to kill an unlimited number of people.

    I visited two gun enthusiast websites. One was 90-10 "Go Yeager!" about him killing lotsa gun-grabbers.

    The other was 30-70 "this is just what the liberal media think we're like."

  10. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security on Friday suspended the handgun-carry permit of a Camden, Tenn., man who made a YouTube threat that he would "start killing people" if the Obama administration acted to restrict guns.

    No word yet as to whether similar actions are being considered toward Matthew Staver and/or all christians.

    1. They revoked his permit to carry HANDGUNS. He can still carry ASSAULT WEAPONS. He can keep his vast arsenal.

      Is there anything, anything you can do, anything you can say, that will enable the gov't to take your guns away? If you can say "I'm gonna kill people" on-camera and the government lets you keep your aresenal-- well, let's admit now that the NRA believe lunatics have the human right to own vast arsenals and giant mags of cop-killer bullets.

    2. Diogenes, I am pretty sure you can expect an arrest soon of this jerk. He will of course defy the order.
      It might be a very smart move. In most cases it is illegal to deprive a person of their livelihood, and he needs his guns to do his 'work'. Plus, interpreting the first amendment in the age of the internet is still a work in progress. If he hadn't filmed himself, and just blurted what he did out at a bar, he probably couldn't be charged for anything. It all points to a long drawn out court case the government most likely wouldn't win.

      A web is being drawn around this guy, and he'll end up being caught in it.