Gun nut James Yeager reconsiders his call to arms
The great thing about dumb and violent rhetoric on You Tube videos is, you can take that stuff back before it kills someone, you know? Unlike a bullet fired from a pistol or rifle by an angry gun nut, I mean. Which brings us to Tennessean James Yeager, who’s had his concealed carry permit suspended by Tennessee after his bizarre You Tube rant last week.
In the earlier video, and an even earlier one he took down, “I said some pretty volatile things,” Yeager acknowledges, heh, heh. “I do not in any way advocate the overthrow of the United States government. Nor do I condone any violent actions toward elected officials. I was very angry when I made that video, and I didn’t have time to reflect on it before it was put up.”
January 14, 2013 - 2:38 PM
I was very angry when I made that video, and I didn’t have time to reflect on it before it was put up.”
This is nothing but a ploy to get his carry permit restored. Any body who gets that angry and is that volatile and flies off the handle that easily should not be allowed to carry guns, or in my opinion even to own them.
I like how he says “It was put up”, in the passive voice. Like it put itself up.
So the gun nut with a skin head and survivalists’ rage runs to a calm guy in a suit and tie when he needs help out of a jam? That reminds me of how it took city boy doctors for “country boy” Bocephus to survive.
Interesting use of passive voice. “I was very angry when I made that video, and I didn’t have time to reflect on it before it was put up” should read “I was very angry when I made that video, and I didn’t *take* time to reflect on it before *I put it up.*”
Take some responsibility, dude.
If this guy, who calls other people “pussies”, is so tough why does he need to have a “quite formidable army”? This sickens me beyond belief. This country has the most liberal gun laws (or lack thereof) in the world outside of Somalia and punks like these are whining over what? He and his kind can take his “freedoms” and shove it. This country does not need people like him or you if you are one of his “army”…
So if someone shoots a “gun nut”, will it be your fault because of your words?
I am going to call this phenomenon the ‘Nugent’. Seems they all follow Ted’s lead when things get sticky.
A proven fact is that folks that has anger issues such as this sometiems take it out on people. TOO late
I believe in the earlier thread I suggested a comparison of this fellow (on the far right) to the obamaphone lady (on the far left).
Has there been any follow-up with her relating to her opinion that the taxpayer owes her a work free life, a free phone, free “obamamoney” etc…?
I will wait with baited breath to hear that “thoughtful reflection” in a video.
“I believe in the earlier thread I suggested a comparison of this fellow (on the far right) to the obamaphone lady (on the far left).
Has there been any follow-up with her relating to her opinion that the taxpayer owes her a work free life, a free phone, free “obamamoney” etc…?
I will wait with baited breath to hear that “thoughtful reflection” in a video.”
–Comment by MikeO
MikeO,
You indeed suggest such a comparison. It was inept, at best — unless the lady in question was threatening to shoot government officials, or calling for armed revolt, because she didn’t get her phone.
Besides, notwithstanding her own ignorance, the much better nickname ought to be Reaganphone.
Oh yes MikeO because welfare is just as dangerous as a mentally unstable guy with guns, threatening to kill people. It’s folks like you that make us rational people so irritated with the right, please next time stop and think about what you’re typing you know actually say it out loud to yourself I think you will find you come off as a bit misinformed.
Oh, Dan..
As a good liberal, surely you realize, that every dollar that goes to unnecessary spending like “obamaphones”, is one less dollar that could go to help the poor starving children in our society… I can’t believe you support giving away cell phones to let children die of starvation.
“The obamaphone lady calls for a pizza, as poor children scream for their next meal. “
Where is your heart???
Also, you do not know what this lady would do if she did not get her obamaphone, we see riots on the streets today because people are not getting their housing vouchers. We see OWS people rioting for… ? ok you got me there…
Btw… (speaking of “inept” comparisons) Reagan never proposed giving away cell phones. If I were you I’d act like you’ve never seen this post and move on, like you usually do in checkmate. Lol…
He was “angry” when he made the first (and second) video? Well, he could get “angry” again. I recommend calling 911 if anyone sees that guy near a school.
mike o, you’ve twisted and spun this thread into I have no idea what. Who the h— is rioting in the streets for housing vouchers? How many folks are gunned to death over housing vouchers? How many people were shot by OWS protestors? Your red herring analogy of gun nuts like Yeager to the “obamaphonelady” is lame.
BTW, the word is “bated”…
Keep yapping Dan, you and Obama and Obama’s handlers are about to hear from 80 million law-abiding, tax paying, gun-owning American citizens. Obama may not have to worry about another election, but members of congress do. The constitution will stand. In his drive to divide the country he picked the wrong target this time.
Oh, Mike O, as a good right winger, you clearly do not realize, that every dollar that goes to “obamaphones”, has come from cell phone users not taxpayers. It is not “one less dollar that could go to help the poor starving children in our society” but it sure sounds better than the truth to folks like you.
I can’t believe you keep making your POV so abhorrent that it repulses people, but you do. Why don’t you stop acting like the GOTP hasn’t been a big part of every problem we have. You know, be honest.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
How many times do the same right wing lies have to be refuted?
She might club someone over the head with her non-existent Obama phone. That makes the analogy work.
Nugent promised that if Obama were reelected, he’d either be in jail or dead. Typical of his ilk, he was lying.
mikeo,
Social welfare programs cost the federal budget approx. 60 billion dollars in 2012. Corporate welfare programs cost the federal budget approx. $100 billion 2012. I’m willing to work on social welfare programs if you can agree to cutting corporate welfare substantially. The biggest welfare queens existing in the United States today are corporations. That also really doesn’t get into companies like WalMart paying its employees and limiting employee hours in such a way as to make them eligible for social welfare benefits.
Divert as you will, it is folks like Yeager, Mike O, Frank, and Suzie, et al that make Obama look good. I cannot thank you enough.
Comment by Sandi Saunders@13:
Sandi; time for you to be honest (if you can). Obamaphones are paid for
by a tax on cell phone use. . .who’d a thunk it? Cell phone users are
taxpayers! If not taxed the cell phone users could donate the funds for charity. The goverment could use the funds to better purpose but I’m not sure we can trust them. . .or you to be honest about the whole matter.
http://obamaphone.net/
19.Divert as you will, it is folks like Yeager, Mike O, Frank, and Suzie, et al that make Obama look good. I cannot thank you enough.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — January 14, 2013 @ 7:37 pm
. . .or jaundiced eyes.
Calling all uninformed Right Wingers including mike o who keep repeating the “obama phones” fallacy…
Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use “taxpayer money” to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?
A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.
“Welfare recipients, and others, can receive a free cell phone, but the program IS NOT FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR TAXPAYER MONEY” as alleged.
“This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush… which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.”
http://factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
Can we put this idiotic meme to rest already?
Well, scott, John W calls folks who don’t love guns “pantywaists.” It must be something with these manly gun toters.
“Sandi; time for you to be honest (if you can). Obamaphones are paid for by a tax on cell phone use. . .who’d a thunk it? Cell phone users are taxpayers! If not taxed the cell phone users could donate the funds for charity. The goverment could use the funds to better purpose but I’m not sure we can trust them. . .or you to be honest about the whole matter.”
http://obamaphone.net/
–Comment by Leon
Neither the tax nor the program have anything to do with Obama. It’s a nasty gag engineered by the president’s political enemies, Leon. As for the URL: That was registered anonymously by someone hiding behind a mail drop in Scottsdale, Arizona.
I could register LeonIsAnIdiot.com the same way.
BTW, here is text fron the site Leon linked to:
“The term “Obama Phone” has been tossed around in the media and through social networks for many years now, but in reality there is no such thing as an “Obama phone.”
While it is true that the United States government does provide discounted or free telecommunication services to eligible low income and disadvantaged families, calling it an Obama phone is not true, as Obama had no part in initiating this program.
Cast your mind back to a time when there was no such thing as a cellular phone.
Back in the 1980’s the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), under the Ronald Reagan administration, created the Universal access initiative, which aimed to “promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable and affordable rates for all consumers.” Through this initiative the Federal Lifeline Assistance program was developed.”
http://obamaphone.net/what-is-the-obama-phone1/
Leon, I am always honest. You not agreeing with me proves it. I am not hiding in the safety of anonymity lying or attacking people….
scott whitaker:
“This country has the most liberal gun laws (or lack thereof) in the world outside of Somalia”
Not so. According to The Worldwide Gun Owner’s Guile, the USA is number 9 behind Khyber Pass, Albania, Crete, Luxembourg, Switzerland, San Marino, Finland, and New Zealand.
We have a lot of work to do, but I hope we can leapfrog all 8 of those in my lifetime.
gdad:
“Well, scott, John W calls folks who don’t love guns “pantywaists.” It must be something with these manly gun toters.
That is completely untrue. I said anonymous blog bombthowers were cowardly pantywaists, a comment a stand by. Sandi sure doesn’t love guns by any measure and we disagree often, but she is hardly a pantywaist.
Get it right anonymous blog bombthrower gdad.
Dan:
“I could register LeonIsAnIdiot.com the same way.”
I’m partial to this one…
http://senatorfeinstein.com/
Re: scott whitaker @ 3:58 pm
You don’t like liberal laws and liberty?
“BTW, the word is “bated”…
Comment by scott whitaker — January 14, 2013 @ 7:16 pm”
Thank you for pointing that out, scott. That’s a pet peeve of mine. My husband used to jokingly say, “I’m waiting with a worm on my tongue.” Clever, wasn’t he? He thought so.
As for the phone ‘tax’, if someone doesn’t want to pay it, don’t have a phone. Of course, now someone will respond with the fact that it’s extremely difficult to live without any kind of phone, landline or cellular, because they are pretty necessary for things like employment, doctor’s appointments, or calling 911 in an emergency…WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY THE PROGRAM WAS INITIATED! Some folks in the mean ol’ government thought it was tragic that people might die due to lack of the ability to call for help. How terrible of them to try to find a workable solution to avoid that.
Can we put this idiotic meme to rest already?
Comment by Hillary — January 14, 2013 @ 7:50 pm
Can we do the same thing with the idiotic meme referred to as the “gun show loophole?”
So I am assuming Oprah was all booked up to talk to this arrogant prick.
John W, given the “manly” threats I’ve endured from right-wingers on this blog, every one of them a big brave gun owner (except perhaps one), I’m darned glad I’ve kept my anonymity from most. Of course those guys were also “pantywaists” by your definition. I’m sure Jack is glad to hear he’s a pantywaist, as well. Oh, wait, Jack owns guns and agrees with you, so I guess he’s not one, eh?
And even Sandi (who throws her share of bombs along with more considered opinions) has said more than once that she wished she could suddenly become anonymous. Some right wingers, suzie among them, have made threatening “sounding” comments about whether her boss knew certain things. suzie also anonymously threatens Ron occasionally.
Anyway, using “pantywaist” to describe anybody, John W, tells us all a lot about you. None of it good.
“So I am assuming Oprah was all booked up to talk to this arrogant prick.”
–Comment by Justin True
Yeah! By Lance Armstrong. Another arrogant prick!
I have taken years of unmitigated crap from my friends because I cannot stand Lance Armstrong. I am not sparing the “Told ya sos”.
“We have a lot of work to do, but I hope we can leapfrog all 8 of those in my lifetime.”
There are a lot of other things in those countries we should seek to emulate other than gun policy. You’d call them “socialist” however. Nice picking and choosing.
Comment by gdad — January 15, 2013 @ 9:22 am
Not only do I post under my real name, I’ll give directions to anyone who wants to find me when they threaten me. I do this because as inflammatory as I can be online, I believe in taking responsibility for my words and actions. I own them and I refuse to fear any threats for which my own words were the catalyst.
In the better part of twenty years of lobbing insults on the web, I’ve met exactly one internet tough guy who actually followed my directions and came to find me, after at least a dozen other no-shows. We shook hands upon introduction, grabbed a pack of beer and rode ATVs all day. I still hang out with him on occasion and he loves to tell everyone how we met when he came to “whoop ass on some internet punk”. My firearms were locked in the vault at home, too. No one needs a weapon to call a bluff.
We have freedom of speech in this country. If you have to hide behind a pseudonym and aren’t willing to own what you say, what’s the point in saying anything at all? And it most certainly is hiding.
Isn’t it ironic that gun rights advocates consider gun control advocates “pantywaists”? You see, I’ve always looked at it the other way around. I’ve never once carried a gun I guess because I don’t live in constant fear apparently as most people who carry must. I’m far more concerned about getting myself injured in a car accident than I am getting mugged, the former being far more likely here than the latter. My daughter, attractive (IMO!) and young, lives in Harlem and has done so now for four years. And this is definitely not one of the gentrified sections of Harlem. She teaches fourth grade in the Bronx. I cannot even get her to carry pepper spray or a personal alarm! She assures us she has never encountered any problems and her personal safety has never been threatened.
I guess it’s your personal perspective of the world. None of us in our family are naive, believe me. But neither do we feel in constant danger from the “criminal element”. Today I guess I fear the gun toters (the vast majority of whom I know are good, honest folks). The more guns to me means the more likely they are to be used in instances when they shouldn’t. For every 100 people who carry, there’s going to be one hair trigger guy who’s never been convicted of anything but has a temper ready to go off at the merest perceived slight. I’m more concerned about that gun toting “law abiding” citizen who too quickly resorts to using guns instead of words or even fists. All you have to do is look at the hot tempered guys on these videos. They’re the ones who scare me…
J M White, I too am in the phone book…
To all the heartless liberals that would rather give obamaphones away (rather than feed starving children) under the guise that it costs the taxpayer “nothing”. I suggest you read your own links.
Your link states the USF, administered by the USAC, set up by the FCC “is sustained by “contributions” (called) the USF “you might see on your phone bill”… (you can’t make this stuff up).
So you give your monthly “contribution” dollars in your USF and the USAC takes a bite for administration, then gives what is left to USF who takes a bite for administration, then gives what is left to “safelink” to run the program (after taking their administration fees of course). And of course those who pay are not “taxpayers”.
Yep… seems like the perfect movement of assets to those in need. REALLY?
Gdad:
“Oh, wait, Jack owns guns and agrees with you, so I guess he’s not one, eh?”
Jack has come to two blogger get togethers, posted pictures of himself more than once on this blog, and liberally writes and posts under his full name elsewhere (at least in more official circumstances). Perhaps it’s just this blog. I don’t know.
scott whitaker:
Isn’t it ironic that gun rights advocates consider gun control advocates “pantywaists”?
How have two of you missed WHY I called that blogger that?! You, too, are wrong. It was not because said blogger is anti-gun rights. It was because of said blogger’s well established status as a cowardly ANONYMOUS bomb thrower.
“To all the heartless liberals that would rather give obamaphones away (rather than feed starving children) under the guise that it costs the taxpayer “nothing”. I suggest you read your own links.
Your link states the USF, administered by the USAC, set up by the FCC “is sustained by “contributions” (called) the USF “you might see on your phone bill”… (you can’t make this stuff up).”
mikeO,
If you care at all about basic honesty, fact and truth in the stuff you post here, you should click on a link from the website that Leon put on this blog yesterday regarding so-called “Obama phones.” Remember, this a website Leon promoted. http://obamaphone.net/what-is-the-obama-phone1/
If you don’t care about basic honesty, or fact, or the truth, I won’t be surprised.
But you’d be better off surprising me and some other folks here. Your choice.
JohnW, I’d prefer to keep my anonymity and keep the nutters from my door than invite them over and have to keep lots of weapons around to shoot them when they do.
People in my RL – on both sides of the aisle – know very well where I stand on stuff.
john wilburn,
i think they are all panty-waists (some are disguised, and some aren’t), and i applaud your use of the term.
JohnW, I’d prefer to keep my anonymity and keep the nutters from my door
Hey. Wow. I’ve said the same thing for years. We agree on Nutella and now this! Who knows what’s next?