Yeager - STOP National Concealed Carry!

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    Yeager's opinion on National Concealed Carry

    Language warning!


    [video=youtube;Ol1k-Q37t2A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol1k-Q37t2A[/video]
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,970
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    I was going to list all the errors, but I do not have enough cyberspace.

    National Driver's License? Completely unaware of the DL Compact.

    California in 1986 was first to have concealed carry?

    Believing that Carry Reciprocity equates to some federal license?

    One swipe of a pen? He is incoherent.

    States' rights? No, Chief Yeager, your side lost the Civil War. There is such a thing as a 14th Amendment.

    He is "giving up rye-eets" by carrying legally in other states?

    The man is delusional.
     

    Brad69

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 16, 2016
    5,104
    77
    Perry county
    Why is the dude still a "thing"?

    I cannot believe anyone pays this guy money.

    Somebody break it down for me "Barney" style I just don't get it.
    What was the guy who made videos that had the hott chick "Dirk and Liz" ?
    At least you could look at her while he spouted lies.
     

    DRob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Aug 2, 2008
    5,869
    83
    Southside of Indy
    Mark Twain said, "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference!" Well, Yeager is one of those fools he was taking about.


     

    oldpink

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 7, 2009
    6,660
    63
    Farmland
    Yep, more babbling from the resident assbag that is Yeager.
    There's a term for people like him I heard from a friend: Arrogantly ignorant
     

    Ddillard

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Apr 29, 2016
    1,604
    27
    Jeffersonville
    I know some are going to disagree with me, yet I will have to agree with James Yeager. Asshat, or not, he has put forward a proper statement. He is not against national reciprocity in as far as that deriving from the national government itself, as it should be granted such by the association of states. As in the foundling of states under the Articles of Confederation, these same states set upon agreements with each other in order of compromise and perseverence of such duties and obligations. In agreement, I also will point towards the point of national government interference in such matters has always went awry. The powers that be follow a policy of "what is given, can and shall be taken away". The national government has floundered in its primary duties and responsibilities, and can be regarded as pure power-mongering.

    Ask yourself one question. How can they give permission (reciprocity enactment), when they don't have the founding authority to do such? In answer to such question, read up on the founding documents before rendering a judgement on such an issue. As I am not a scholar in such matters, I am justly putting forward my thinking upon the matter.

    The same people that argue for national reciprocity are the same that argue against the AHCA (obamacare). If they overstepped the founding authority there, then how is this matter any different. The national government is not your friend, as they are as the snake in the grass. Take this for what it is, "opinion".

    For those that agree let them agree, and those that not, disagree. That is the founding of OUR Grand Republic.~~"One Man's Opinion!"
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,970
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Asshat, or not, he has put forward a proper statement.

    Everything Yeager said was incorrect.

    As in the foundling of states under the Articles of Confederation,

    I am uncertain what is being fondled by Yeager but it is not a book.

    Ask yourself one question. How can they give permission (reciprocity enactment), when they don't have the founding authority to do such?

    1. 14th Amendment.
    2. Full Faith and Credt.
    3. Guarantee of a Republic Form of Government.
    4. Supremacy Clause.
     

    Ddillard

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Apr 29, 2016
    1,604
    27
    Jeffersonville
    My statements are not in defending Yeager, but in the conforming to the standards set forth in the Tenth Amendment. The states are supreme in all aspects of that which is not rendered under law by the national government. Agree, disagree, it does not matter. Speak out. The supremacy clause is just that, a rendering of national government big hand to quash the basic rights of such states.

    As per the statement of fondling, you might want to read more carefully as the word was foundling and not fondling.

    Being such, I am not in disagreement with the founding documents as much as the modern day usurpation of such acts which were meant for easing judgements upon disagreeing parties (the states). In all aspects the national government is only delving when such matters are undealt with upon such states.
     
    Last edited:

    jbombelli

    ITG Certified
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    May 17, 2008
    13,010
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    Some people would rather lose their freedoms at the state level than have the federal government protect those freedoms.

    Myself? I always will take the side of freedom no matter who is promoting it.
     

    SwikLS

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 26, 2015
    1,172
    113
    The Bunker
    all of this further illustrates the need for an Article 5 Convention of States to deal with these kinds of matters. it is the states that created the Constitution and it is them and them alone that can fix what has become broken.
     

    jbombelli

    ITG Certified
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    May 17, 2008
    13,010
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    all of this further illustrates the need for an Article 5 Convention of States to deal with these kinds of matters. it is the states that created the Constitution and it is them and them alone that can fix what has become broken.

    Why? So they can redefine, in writing this time, what "shall not be infringed" means, or take that wording out entirely? We don't need a Constitutional Convention. With how things go these days, with all the backroom deals, and the way nobody cares about the Constitution anymore, I flat guarantee WE'LL LOSE SOMETHING that we don't want to lose.
     

    SwikLS

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 26, 2015
    1,172
    113
    The Bunker
    Why? So they can redefine, in writing this time, what "shall not be infringed" means, or take that wording out entirely? We don't need a Constitutional Convention. With how things go these days, with all the backroom deals, and the way nobody cares about the Constitution anymore, I flat guarantee WE'LL LOSE SOMETHING that we don't want to lose.

    I flat guarantee we won't. A Convention of States would have to be specific to Amendments being proposed to the Constitution and it would only take 17 states refusing to participate in proposing such amendments to defeat it and only 13 states refusing to ratify. Legislatures would control their delegate(s) and could recall them at any time.

    The framers of the Constitution intended for this process to be used to rectify issues and its use is long overdue.
     

    oldpink

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 7, 2009
    6,660
    63
    Farmland
    I flat guarantee we won't. A Convention of States would have to be specific to Amendments being proposed to the Constitution and it would only take 17 states refusing to participate in proposing such amendments to defeat it and only 13 states refusing to ratify. Legislatures would control their delegate(s) and could recall them at any time.

    The framers of the Constitution intended for this process to be used to rectify issues and its use is long overdue.

    Not that it would necessarily be required in this circumstance, but that's quite correct.
    Anyone wanting to know more about this should check out Mark Levin's "The Liberty Amendments."
    There is no fiercer or more articulate defender of our founding document than Mark "F. Lee" Levin.
     

    Ddillard

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Apr 29, 2016
    1,604
    27
    Jeffersonville
    The Convention of States is a direct representative of the correlation of the current situation. We have to remember the Constitution, as we know it, was derived from the Articles of Confederation. Thus being said, the representative bodies of such States were sent in convention. The results were not what was expected, a total change from the original founding. In other words, beware what you seek, as it may not be what you want.~~"One Man's Opinion!"
     
    Top Bottom