It is also generally accepted in this country that felons, domestic abusers, and dangerously mentally ill people should not be allowed to buy or possess firearms. Even most NRA members agree with this (in spite of their insane leadership). And personally, I would add the man in the picture above. His name is James Yeager, and he is the owner of a company that supposedly teaches people how to use weapons (although the state of Tennessee, where he lives, says his company is NOT certified to do firearms training and Mr. Yeager is NOT certified by the state to instruct anyone).
A couple of days ago, this man made a video in which he threatened to start a revolution if President Obama and Congress passed any new gun restrictions. He said he would be happy to fire the first shot and was ready to start "killing people". I consider that to be a terroristic threat, and think he should have been arrested. At least the state of Tennessee did take some action. They suspended his right to carry a concealed handgun, saying:
The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public’s safety. Mr. Yeager’s comments were irresponsible, dangerous, and deserved our immediate attention. Due to our concern, as well as that of law enforcement, his handgun permit was suspended immediately. We have notified Mr. Yeager about the suspension today via e-mail. He will receive an official notification of his suspension through the mail.
I wish they could have done more. I consider this guy to be a perfect example of the kind of person who should not be allowed to even own a gun of any kind. He has already said he is willing to kill people because he doesn't like proposed laws that would tighten restrictions on who can own a gun, and possibly outlaw some types of assault weapons. I can easily picture him someday walking into a theater or shopping center or school and starting to kill innocent people, and thinking his action was justified because the government did something he didn't like.
I don't think that's an unreasonable point of view. Having been born and raised in Texas (and still living there), I have been around responsible gun owners all of my life, and I have no problem with that at all. They have a right to own those weapons for both sport and self-defense. Those men and women do not threaten to kill their fellow citizens (or try to overthrow our government), and if they did, I would want their right to own a firearm revoked. If we don't like the way things are going in this country, we have recourse at the ballot box. But we should never have the right to impose our own views by threatening to kill people. We have prisons for people like that.
You are the classic "appeaser". And you think you have "street cred" because you are "for the 2nd Amendment", but in reality, you haven't a clue what the 2nd Amendment means, what it is for, and why appeasement NEVER works. Just ask England...
ReplyDeleteWho am I trying to appease? Do you think EVERYONE, including criminals, have the right to own and carry a gun?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteYou stated that; "I personally believe assault weapons and ammo clips holding more than 10 bullets should be added to that list of banned items". Again, you clearly do not understand ANYTHING about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. You also stated that "I consider this guy to be a perfect example of the kind of person who should not be allowed to even own a gun of any kind."
Really? And who should make that capricious decision to remove his 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights for the rest of his life? You? Some government bureaucrat? Again, you have proven that you have no clue about the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
And we, as civilians, are not permitted to own the "Assault Weapons" you speak of without a ton of paperwork, six month FBI background check, and a $200 "tax stamp" -- along with the price of the weapon itself, which is normally $5,000 and up. We, as civilians, may only purchase semi-automatic rifles from your average gun store.
Again, you stated that, "I personally believe assault weapons and ammo clips holding more than 10 bullets" should be banned. However, "bullets" are useless unless they also have a case, primer, and powder, which then form a "cartridge". Further, "clips" are never used in modern weapons, but "magazines" that hold cartridges are.
Ted, please educate yourself on gun laws so that you may be taken a bit more seriously.
BTW, I love your quote -- I agree 100% (FYI: I'm a liberal too):
ReplyDelete"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion".
The "purpose" of the Second Amendment is to allow United States citizens to own a firearm. It was originally intended to be so a militia could be easily gathered to defend the country. But it was not written that way specifically. So it does give citizens the right to own a firearm (even if they're not in a militia). However, the Supreme Court has decided numerous times that the right is not absolute. A state or city can impose reasonable limitations on who can own a gun. Personally, I don't believe those who have been convicted of a crime (even domestic violence) should be allowed to possess a firearm -- and neither should those who have been found to be dangerously mentally ill (who pose a clear danger to others).
ReplyDeleteI do not own a gun, but I respect the right of others to do so. I do however believe we need a background check laws without loopholes that criminals and dangerous people can easily slip through.
"Personally, I don't believe those who have been convicted of a crime (even domestic violence) should be allowed to possess a firearm -- and neither should those who have been found to be dangerously mentally ill."
ReplyDeleteTed, what you speak of is already law, and has been for quite some time!! And the only "loopholes" in gun purchases, except for the absurdly exaggerated "Gun Show Loophole", is that criminals can easily purchase guns illegally (that's why they're called "criminals"), and that many of the individual States send very little severe mental health information to the FBI NICS system.
But if I may put words in your mouth here: I'm guessing what you're saying is that you feel that an ex-Chief of Police, ex-SWAT member, a man who saw combat in Iraq, and has never been adjudicated as mentally ill (i.e., James Yeager), should NOT be allowed to own a gun because he said something in anger in a video rant on YouTube? Is that what you are saying Ted, or am I misunderstanding your entire post?