James Yeager says "pack your bags" Updated - Page 18

James Yeager says "pack your bags" Updated

This is a discussion on James Yeager says "pack your bags" Updated within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Mike1956 Numbers are very important, particularly when Biden assures us that his upcoming ban will be successful and worthwhile even if it ...

Page 18 of 25 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 367
Like Tree433Likes

Thread: James Yeager says "pack your bags" Updated

  1. #256
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Numbers are very important, particularly when Biden assures us that his upcoming ban will be successful and worthwhile even if it saves only one child's life.
    That is all I was trying to say. One loses credibility when they exagerrate or make up facts....on both sides. If pointing out a gross error in a post (which BTW is the same error that has been circulating the internet when folks bring up examples of disarmament) then I guess I am the fool
    Mike1956 likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8


  2. #257
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Where did I say that was not the important thing? And I disagree with you that the numbers are not important per se. They are important when you are to quote a death figure well over ten times the documented numbers to someone that you are debating this with. It comes down to beleivability. If an anti tells me that guns are the leading cause of death in the US I would blow them off. If they argue with at least the facts I will listen. How many tiimes do we get upset with the media when they distort the facts? All the time and rightfully so. I was not disagreeing with the gentleman...just publishing a fact.

    I never once said that it was not a cause to the German Jews getting killed, nor did I refute that the denial of arms had to do or assited in the other mass killings.

    Just the fact ma'am
    Um, that would be Sir, to you. Heck, I'd even answer to butthead. However, I am not a woman so, calling me ma'am does not apply.

    The point to my post was that in the context of genocide being an issue, once you establish it is real, and it happens, how many people slaughtered isn't so much of an issue.

    No one, (unless they are the organizers of the genocide and keep meticulous records, which the German's attempted to do), will ever know the acutal numbers. The number of people killed during any genocide will never be known. It is essentally always going to be an "unknown figure." So, if people tout an inaccurate figure regarding a genocide, does that negate the fact that it happened?

    The very nature of genocide makes it a given assumption that no one will know the actual numbers. So, I don't think an inaccurate account of the numbers being kicked around is very relevant when speaking of genocide.

    Using the context of a genocide, is not the same as when using inaccurate stats or figures when discussing other aspects of crime related to guns. Those are figures more easily quantified. Those kinds of stats do become more relevant. In that context and discussion, I agree, being accurate in one's assertions is very important. In that context, it does lend credibility to one's argument.
    atctimmy likes this.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  3. #258
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,952
    OK, I will drop it here. I get your point and you do not get mine. We are not talking about whether it is a difference of 21 million and 22 million. It is a documented fact there were not even 700K Jews in Germany to begin with. That is a fact established by every source that is concerned about this issue. You can not claim that 20 million is close or that there is no way to prove how many were killed.

    Again, I get your point, you don't get mine and this has nothing to do with Yeager. This ws not an attempt at hijacking a thread but was to simply pointi out a factual error.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  4. #259
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    OK, I will drop it here. I get your point and you do not get mine. We are not talking about whether it is a difference of 21 million and 22 million. It is a documented fact there were not even 700K Jews in Germany to begin with. That is a fact established by every source that is concerned about this issue. You can not claim that 20 million is close or that there is no way to prove how many were killed.

    Again, I get your point, you don't get mine and this has nothing to do with Yeager. This ws not an attempt at hijacking a thread but was to simply pointi out a factual error.
    I think I understand your point well enough. In fact, I tend to agree with it. Being accurate in a debate is very important and does lend to one's credibility. I get that.

    My only point was when speaking of genocides. The very nature of a genocide means the numbers of those slaughtered is going to be an unknown factor. You can either acknowledge a genocide took place or it didn't. To try and argue whether the numbers were either this figure or that figure is not a relevant issue of the discussion. In that context.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  5. #260
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    I think I understand your point well enough. In fact, I tend to agree with it. Being accurate in a debate is very important and does lend to one's credibility. I get that.

    My only point was when speaking of genocides. The very nature of a genocide means the numbers of those slaughtered is going to be an unknown factor. You can either acknowledge a genocide took place or it didn't. To try and argue whether the numbers were either this figure or that figure is not a relevant issue of the discussion. In that context.
    OK..we are in ageement then...The NE Patriots will win the Super Bowl and last nights Ravens/Broncos game was AWESOME! And on topic: I still think Yeager, JOnes, and folks like them, even if they speak the truth (I said "if") are dangerous at this stage of the game.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  6. #261
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,750
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    Wasn't the Constitution made by people who had, 11 years earlier, believed themselves above British Law? We would not be a nation had they used your reasoning.
    Maybe so, but we have participants who swore an oath to preserve protect and defend our constitution, claim it is for life;
    yet they want to rebel against laws which might be passed under it. I see that as a huge inconsistency.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  7. #262
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,750
    Quote Originally Posted by BeefyG View Post
    I don't think you are a liar and you obviously are very strong in your convictions. I do wonder though if you feel as strongly about our role in shaping the government and what we can do. I may be wrong but I don't think I've seen you encourage anyone to write their senator/representatives. You seem to have a take it as it comes attitude towards this whole thing. I hope I'm wrong about that. I believe we can do more than that and we can support the constitution by being as active as we can in the roles provided to us. Supporting the Constitution doesn't have to be passive. I feel this is a more complete truth.
    Re: Part in bold
    I encourage everyone to be politically active in any way they can. I've posted that here many times through the years.
    Nothing stops any of us from writing, from assembling, from running for office. My whole point here is that lawful
    political action is the only action available to those who swore to preserve, protect, and defend our constitution. Violence,
    threats of violence, are simply law breaking--- that's how the fellow lost his license and harmed all legitimate sane
    and law abiding gun owners.
    keboostman likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #263
    B94
    B94 is offline
    Member Array B94's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    Hopyard, just so people can understand your perspective on these issues, I think it's important to know just what exactly are your thoughts on the 2nd Amendment. What is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment (in your opinion), and what is the reason it was put in the Constitution in the first place?

    I think it would go a long way in the folks understanding your position in your posts.
    I'd like to hear an answer to this too.
    atctimmy likes this.
    PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT - Live Free or Die

  9. #264
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    11,129
    Quote Originally Posted by DRM View Post
    It was stated earlier Yeager lost his CCW permit, his FFL and his Business License...



    I have two LEO door kickers in my camp right now that get verbal death threats all the time. They say it's just free speech, and so do I.

    I may not agree with what someone says but I support their right to say it. THAT is what freedom of speech is all about, or what it used to be about anyway.
    V/R
    D.R.
    There appears to be much schadenfreude afoot with Yeager's woes. As far as I know, the only thing he might be convicted of in all this is of being an occasional loud mouth.
    DRM likes this.
    "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
    William T. Sherman

  10. #265
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,750
    Quote Originally Posted by DRM View Post
    It was stated earlier Yeager lost his CCW permit, his FFL and his Business License...
    YIKES---- I can't believe what I typed in the earlier post you referred to. I meant something exactly different. I meant yeah, he lost his license, and darn well deserved to lose it.
    There is no 1A right to threaten to kill LEOs doing their jobs. His 1A rights weren't denied him.

    Hope that clears it up.

    Thanks for pointing it out. If I wasn't on blood thinners I'd go bang my head against a wall as penance.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  11. #266
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,152
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Maybe so, but we have participants who swore an oath to preserve protect and defend our constitution, claim it is for life;
    yet they want to rebel against laws which might be passed under it. I see that as a huge inconsistency.
    This isn't a new idea, look at the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Those states claimed that citizens have no responsibility to obey unconstitutional laws, and that states had no responsibility to enforce them.

    Madison held the same opinion, and the Constitution was largely his brain child (as far as organizing the Convention)

    Abe Lincoln said - "This Country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

    I am not sure how how see it as an inconsistency to rebel to protect the natural rights that we possess. It was essentially the creed of the founders.
    B94, atctimmy and DRM like this.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  12. #267
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    11,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    YIKES---- I can't believe what I typed in the earlier post you referred to. I meant something exactly different. I meant yeah, he lost his license, and darn well deserved to lose it.
    There is no 1A right to threaten to kill LEOs doing their jobs. His 1A rights weren't denied him.

    Hope that clears it up.

    Thanks for pointing it out. If I wasn't on blood thinners I'd go bang my head against a wall as penance.
    Who, precisely did he threaten? I'm talking actual threats, not some blathering Youtube rant directed at no one in particular, and spoken strictly in the hypothetical.
    atctimmy, DRM and Brad426 like this.
    "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
    William T. Sherman

  13. #268
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,750
    Quote Originally Posted by B94 View Post
    I'd like to hear an answer to this too.
    Bark'n in post 254 asked: "Hopyard, just so people can understand your perspective on these issues, I think it's important to know just what exactly are your thoughts on the 2nd Amendment."


    I'm about where The Supremes are as voiced by Scalia. There is an individual right to keep arms for personal defense, the states are bound by it, it is subject to reasonable regulations. I wish he (and the other justices) had expanded the opinion to make the right to "carry" on one's person part more clear. I have no doubt that our founders wanted people to be able to carry. It is the right of people to carry which can't be infringed, but that right--- just as types of speech in 1A--- can be regulated without infringing on the right. It is also a right of the states to have their own militias, what we now call the National Guard, and that state's right shall not be infringed. Uncle can't tell NY that it can't have a National Guard or any other militia the state
    government might decide to create.

    Finally, I believe that our founders would not have ever thought that rebellion against the government would be justified in
    a Republic where the office holders were elected, and where the power was severely divided amongst the branches and the states. Notwithstanding some firebrand commentary by Jefferson which has been taken out of context anyway, there is no
    individual right of rebellion derived from our constitution; hence the law I often mention 18 USC Chapter 115 Section 2383, 2385, 2389 and the rest of the stuff in Chapter 115 are Constitutional and must be adhered to by all who proclaim themselves
    patriots and by all who have taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend.

    Whether or not the states had a right of rebellion (at one time) before the Civil War seems an open question. Blood, tradition, law, history, I think also post Civil War amendments, and even common sense have taken that off the table. E.g., Ike could have lawfully crushed Arkansas or Mississippi if it had been necessary to do so to uphold the ruling of The Supremes, and I believe he was prepared to do just that. Happily for our country the Arkansas Guard obeyed Federal orders. Had they not, we might have an answer to the question more modern than the one from 1865, but likely no different too.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  14. #269
    B94
    B94 is offline
    Member Array B94's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    Hopyard, just so people can understand your perspective on these issues, I think it's important to know just what exactly are your thoughts on the 2nd Amendment. What is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment (in your opinion), and what is the reason it was put in the Constitution in the first place?

    I think it would go a long way in the folks understanding your position in your posts.
    Hopyard

    You missed this part - What is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment (in your opinion), and what is the reason it was put in the Constitution in the first place?
    DRM likes this.
    PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT - Live Free or Die

  15. #270
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,548
    We see a classic example here with Yeager of how we are not free anymore in the United States. Yeager spoke out against the Government and now he lost his CC permit, he lost his FFL and he lost his business license.

    So now in the US it appears that if you speak out on a hypothetical situation you can lose your right to carry and you can lose your ability to put food on the table. That my friends IS the tyranny our founding fathers warned us about.
    DRM, Bark'n, mg27 and 9 others like this.
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

defensive carry james yeager
,
james yeager
,
james yeager one more inch
,
james yeager pack your bag
,

james yeager pack your bags

,
james yeager pack your bags part 1
,
james yeager pack your bags video
,
pack your bags james
,
pack your bags james yeager
,
pack your bags yeager
,
yeager pack your bags
,
yeager's pack your bag video
Click on a term to search for related topics.