Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Remember the crazy guy who said he'd start shooting people if his second amendment rights were infringed? Yeah, the state of Tennessee just suspended his handgun carry permit   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 548
    More: Followup, Tenn, Department of Safety, James Yeager, handguns, handgun carry  
•       •       •

11677 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



548 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-11 10:00:23 PM  
does someone actually get sent around to take his guns away now?  how does this work?
 
2013-01-11 10:00:30 PM  

pxlboy: These gun control threads must really be driving the page views. I'd swear they're multiplying when we're not looking.

To gun

 
2013-01-11 10:00:43 PM  

llachlan: ReaverZ: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

Yawn, you can't sell fire in a crowded theater, you can't invite others to violence. Your rights end where mine begin. Stop being intellectually dishonest.

You so missed what I was getting at. I totally understand why we limit the 1st. What I am having trouble with is understanding why the reaction to applying the same logic to the 2nd is so vociferous. Btw, even in Canada, where we have no 1st Amendment, you can't yell fire in a theatre.

I wasn't trying to be intellectually dishonest in any way. I live and work in the US, and while I thought I had a good grasp of the culture as compared to back home, I have recently realized that I actually truly understand very little of it - I'm not culturally equipped for it, I guess. As an outsider (who supports your right to bear arms), I am honestly surprised at how reactions to curbing various amendments differ (and my questions apply as much to the 5th, 6th and 7th as to the 1st versus the 2nd).


Ah ,okay. It depends on what you care about. Also who has money to spend on ads and politicians.
 
2013-01-11 10:01:14 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: EvilEgg: But they let him keep his guns, he just has to promise not to carry them.  Psychopaths are known for their scrupulous honesty.

This


I'm not so sure this guy is a psychopath. If the persona he portrayed on the videos was his normal regular self, he'd likely be behind bars already for some kind of violent crime.

If he's one of the more self-aware variety, he'd probably be more measured and likely wouldn't have posted the first video. He definitely wouldn't have posted the 2nd. He would make sure to come across as reasonable and normal.

He's likely got some other snappy combo of mental illness... perhaps he's a manic depressive, maybe narcissistic, and likely a combo of more than one.
 
2013-01-11 10:01:23 PM  
I love it when stupid people get what they deserve.
 
2013-01-11 10:02:00 PM  
i.imgur.com

Guntasmagorical!
 
2013-01-11 10:03:01 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-11 10:03:14 PM  
For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.
 
2013-01-11 10:03:47 PM  

Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 660x360]

Guntasmagorical!


Cute.

To frak
 
2013-01-11 10:04:42 PM  

Indubitably: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 660x360]

Guntasmagorical!

Cute.

To frak


I am SO ready to decimate...

To asteroid
 
2013-01-11 10:07:44 PM  

Indubitably: Indubitably: Haliburton Cummings: [i.imgur.com image 660x360]

Guntasmagorical!

Cute.

To frak

I am SO ready to decimate...

To asteroid


When my consciousness ceases, so does our world, so choose your poison...

We build our worlds and end them with consciousness...

No?
 
2013-01-11 10:08:35 PM  
This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.
 
2013-01-11 10:10:28 PM  
img818.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-11 10:13:41 PM  
i.imgur.com

GUNBELIEVABLEZ
 
2013-01-11 10:13:47 PM  
Good. I am a CCW supporter and a pro gun person. I even agree that the 2nd amendment is to be a chexk on government. But actions have consequences. If you choose to threaten or wage war against the US government you will provoke a response. That response will most likely involve your death. The Israeli's are respond in manner similar to the US government.
 
2013-01-11 10:15:49 PM  

FourBlackBars: This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.


He still has his weapons. Only now he'll be violating the law when he carries them - and he will. Jebus help any cop who stops him for any reason.
 
2013-01-11 10:16:28 PM  
just some back ground on Yeager. This chickenshiat was a PMC back in Iraq who basically abandoned his principal when their convoy came under attack. His comrades are doing their job but when danger reared its ugly head brave sir yeager...well you get idea.
 
2013-01-11 10:17:36 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


Here's my suggestion how to lower gun violence. Ban all Republicans from owning guns. Period. Check voting records, any R votes, you lose your hobby.
 
2013-01-11 10:18:24 PM  
Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.
 
2013-01-11 10:20:12 PM  

leadmetal: Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.


Welcome to the thread.  We already covered that.
 
2013-01-11 10:20:46 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


FIRE!
 
2013-01-11 10:20:58 PM  

FourBlackBars: This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.


If we could well-regulate without the NRA and the other gun groups (and apparently the NRA is less crazy than some of them) having an explosive diarrhea tantrum every time, we wouldn't be in this pickle.
 
2013-01-11 10:21:05 PM  
But isn't he going to protect us from invisible Hitler?
 
2013-01-11 10:21:40 PM  

kombat_unit: Ya, no concealed weapon permit is going to stop a combat vet/PMC with access to full auto long arms (real assault weapons for you slow people) from doing something bad.

I hear that criminals also carry their illegal weapons concealed, with no permit.


Which is why we shouldn't bother banning land mines, tanks, grenades, anthrax.... what's the point?
 
2013-01-11 10:22:45 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


I own a gun I am ok with closing the gun show loophole. Background checks and ban high cap magazines. I with holding judgement on an assault weapons ban till I see actual legislation that gets to a vote.
 
2013-01-11 10:24:51 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.
 
2013-01-11 10:25:29 PM  
pjmedia.com

Threatening people isn't being a responsible gun owner.
 
2013-01-11 10:28:27 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: Good. I am a CCW supporter and a pro gun person. I even agree that the 2nd amendment is to be a chexk on government. But actions have consequences. If you choose to threaten or wage war against the US government you will provoke a response. That response will most likely involve your death. The Israeli's are respond in manner similar to the US government.


When you declare war on the government, the government declares war on you.
 
2013-01-11 10:28:33 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


As far a massacres are concerned, I have no good ideas outside of easier access to mental health care. Concerning gun violence in general, or any violence really, that's going to take a major cultural shift and how do we affect that? As long as you have desperate, miserable people that don't see any way out of their situation, we'll see that kind of thing. Wage disparity, poverty, despair, anger and resentment boiling over, etc etc. Banning handguns hasn't made the hood any safer that I can tell, certainly hasn't stopped kids from joining gangs. I think we need to spend more time highlighting the root causes of violence rather than focusing on one of the means and hoping that solves the problem.
 
2013-01-11 10:29:10 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: propasaurus: I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.

No, that would be the millions who are only starting to speak up now. It might take a while but the volume will get loud enough to be heard around the world.


Please keep the volume down, I'm trying to get some sleep, dammit!
 
2013-01-11 10:29:49 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: gadian: So, is he going to live up to his word now? Start killing people? They did take his guns.

Ah, no.

Revoked his conceal carry permit. I'm sure he's still got a sh*tload of guns.


And all he has to do is get a Utah CCW. Tennessee reciprocally recognizes them.


Also, subby. He said he would start killing people if Obummer uses executive order on gun control not infringe his second amendment rights. An executive order is directed at government employees not citizens. We a have a chief at the top of the executive branch who can give directives to it much like a CEO can give directives to the people under him. What we don't have is a king, queen, dictator, or somebody else that can just dream up some command that you have to follow. Any executive order he gives would be to direct his agencies to do something. What that is exactly we don't know, but from what they have been hinting at is more enforcement of the laws. THAT is exactly what we anti-gun grabbers have been advocating all along. I welcome that POS to actually start enforcing the GD laws for a change.
 
2013-01-11 10:30:12 PM  

Meanniss: dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.

I own a gun I am ok with closing the gun show loophole. Background checks and ban high cap magazines. I with holding judgement on an assault weapons ban till I see actual legislation that gets to a vote.


Lib here. That would be enough for me. Thanks.

All I want is a little more sanity and a little less synthetic testosterone.
 
2013-01-11 10:30:17 PM  

joness0154: Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.


42 + 345789 x 4566789 - 2 = ass banana

ok i see your math there...
 
2013-01-11 10:30:52 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: leadmetal: Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.

Welcome to the thread.  We already covered that.


No, you did not cover it.
Nobody else mentioned how it used to be paranoid to think licensing would be used to silence people's political speech and that has changed to it being good that licensing is being used to silence political speech.

To it being 'violent' political speech, well the federal government folks engage in it frequently. They even have a 'kill list'. Perhaps their licenses to carry firearms should be revoked?
 
2013-01-11 10:30:53 PM  

dbaggins: For example: I'd consider someone a sane gun owner if they could propose something we could change that would make gun massacres less regular, or end all together. Or maybe lower the rate of gun violence in general. Something actually involving guns.


How do you propose to make a very rare event (gun 'massacres') even more rare, short of waving a magic wand removing all the guns from the planet? A very determined individual will find a way to accomplish their goal no matter what - look at Brevik for example. He prepared for over 7 years....

For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that until innocent individuals get involved.
 
2013-01-11 10:31:10 PM  

joness0154: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.


That's a perfect analogy...or it would be if speech were capable of piercing human flesh and causing death, permanent paralysis, horrific disfigurement, agonizing pain, and unanswerable grief for the survivors. Close though--keep working on it.
 
2013-01-11 10:31:30 PM  
HA HA! If you're going to be a dumbass... we should treat you like the dumbass you are. :D
 
2013-01-11 10:33:43 PM  

GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.


Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.
 
2013-01-11 10:33:59 PM  
The funny thing?

Tennessee is almost overwhelmingly filled with Republicans, so even then, there was a problem with this guy. It has nothing to do with politics once you start saying you'll kill people.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:13 PM  

leadmetal: Lionel Mandrake: leadmetal: Interesting how so many people are in favor of government licensing being used to silence commentary the government doesn't approve of. I remember when those who were in favor of licensing things said it would never be used that way. When those who said it could be were called paranoid.

I guess we just aren't supposed to remember these things.

Welcome to the thread.  We already covered that.

No, you did not cover it.
Nobody else mentioned how it used to be paranoid to think licensing would be used to silence people's political speech and that has changed to it being good that licensing is being used to silence political speech.

To it being 'violent' political speech, well the federal government folks engage in it frequently. They even have a 'kill list'. Perhaps their licenses to carry firearms should be revoked?


Clearly it's time to rise up, patriot.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:22 PM  

Lochsteppe: joness0154: llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

The problem with this arguement is that the government isn't prohibiting you from saying anything you'd like - but there are repercussions for some things you say.

You can yell fire when there's no fire in a crowded theater, but you'll be charged with something.

Similarly, murder, assault, intimidation, etc. with a firearm are already illegal. Banning certain guns would be akin to the government bleeping speech before it left your vocal cords.

That's a perfect analogy...or it would be if speech were capable of piercing human flesh and causing death, permanent paralysis, horrific disfigurement, agonizing pain, and unanswerable grief for the survivors. Close though--keep working on it.


The point must've gone completely over your head.

The only limitation on the 1st amendment is that there are consequences for misuse.

The same can be currently said about the 2nd.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:23 PM  

joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that


And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.
 
2013-01-11 10:37:32 PM  

TommyymmoT: What a major, major douche bag.
"Stop sending me emails and calling me."
Somebody alert 4Chan.


NOT YOUR PERSONAL ARMY!
 
2013-01-11 10:37:47 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.


Too bad he's still got'em.
 
2013-01-11 10:39:02 PM  
I feel much safer.

/Just Sayin'
 
2013-01-11 10:41:07 PM  
ABOUT DAMN TIME.

Camden, TN is full of crazy, too. They're one of the big meth production cities in West-Middle Tennessee - the other being Waverly. (Waverly is also a sundown town, even today.)
 
2013-01-11 10:41:46 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: joness0154: For gun violence, at least here in Chicago, it's mostly gang members taking care of each other. I don't have a problem with that

And that's why nobody should take you seriously or listen to anything you have to say on the subject of guns.


Because I don't care about the scum of our society taking care of each other? Please, enlighten us on why we should give a damn.
 
2013-01-11 10:41:56 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Good. People with mental issues, or those making threats, should NOT have guns. At least in this case, the system works.

Holy shiat, you and I agree on something. Imma have to mark this on my calendar.

Too bad he's still got'em.


Got'em?

Younmean, Got'all...

*)
 
2013-01-11 10:43:09 PM  

ThisIsntMe: I feel much safer.

/Just Sayin'


I don't. This paranoid, delusional farkwit now has more reason to believe the evil gub'mint is taking away his rights - and he still has his guns. This makes it more likely that he will kill innocent people who are only interested in protecting society from his insanity.
 
2013-01-11 10:43:29 PM  

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x


-----------------

That's the thing - there are plenty of limits on the 2nd Amendment. Try getting your hands on a RPG, or a machine gun, or napalm. All are "arms", and all are heavily, heavily limited. This whole argument is just about the *amount* of regulation we want.

That's why it's retarded to claim that you're somehow infringing upon 2nd amendment rights if you limit "assault weapons". There is absolutely no basis in the constitution for banning a fully automatic weapon, but not a semi-automatic one. Either you claim the 2nd Amendment allows ALL arms to be held by any citizen, or you're admitting that some amount of regulation is reasonable.
 
Displayed 50 of 548 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report