I think you articulated this much more effectively than Yeager, and have given me something to think about. I like Yeager, btw. I don't always agree with him, but who agrees with anyone 100% of the time? Only political hacks and liars. (One in the same, really.)
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Yeager - STOP National Concealed Carry!
- Thread starter bwframe
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
I think you articulated this much more effectively than Yeager, and have given me something to think about. I like Yeager, btw. I don't always agree with him, but who agrees with anyone 100% of the time? Only political hacks and liars. (One in the same, really.)
Maybe so. But I don't trust our current politicians, nationwide, to do anything. At all. I'd expect to see a 500 page amendment written in such convoluted language that nobody understands it. Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid, but based on everything else our politicians do, is that so off-base?
I agree. It is not the idea but what and how the idea is brought about. It is definitely a trust issue. Total no confidence in those of the "Shiny city on the hill".
lolThat would be fun to watch! Hopefully someone brings a camera and upload it on Youtube.If I remember correctly I think Yeager said he would accept to duel using simunition.That would be the only dueling form I would accept with James Yeager.
Why can't the federal government just recognize the right of the people to carry anywhere on US soil and be done with it? I guess it's asking too much to just respect the freaking constituion.They do it with the freedom of religion and the First Amendment.Why not the same thing with the second? 
You don't need any licence from your state or federal government (or local sheriff) in order to practice your faith anywhere on US soil.And it's legal to cross state lines with your Bible (or Quran, Torah etc).I guess James Yeager is just against some kind of carry permit delivered by the federal government.I can see why it might be a bad thing as it could be easily taken away.Having your state permit recognized by all the US states (like a driver's licence) is different than a national/federal conceal carry permit.Not needeing any permit to exercice your natural rights in the first place would be even better.
You don't need any licence from your state or federal government (or local sheriff) in order to practice your faith anywhere on US soil.And it's legal to cross state lines with your Bible (or Quran, Torah etc).I guess James Yeager is just against some kind of carry permit delivered by the federal government.I can see why it might be a bad thing as it could be easily taken away.Having your state permit recognized by all the US states (like a driver's licence) is different than a national/federal conceal carry permit.Not needeing any permit to exercice your natural rights in the first place would be even better.
It's always hilarious all the haters that pop out of the caves when Yeager is brought up. So many people talk crap about him and his training but I'll bet money that 99% of **** talkers have never taken a class from him or met the man face to face nor would they talk **** to his face. Not that he would harm them but they just like to hide and talk ****
Also as mods have mentioned before, Yeager IS A member here and name calling and personal attacks aren't allowed against other members if anyone cares.
And James Yeager is a good man who has given the shirt off his back for many people. I don't like people talking **** about someone I consider a friend.
Be like Kirk and argue against their opinions using reason and facts to back it up. Don't make personal attacks that hold no water.
Also he actively fights to defend and protect our second Amendment rights and prepare and better fellow citizens for the fight of their life and some it has actually saved their liveds and others! Fact.
So,next time people wanna bash Yeager, before you type your hate post, take time and write an email or make a phone call to your elected officials and voice an opinion first. Then at least you will have done something productive that day
Also as mods have mentioned before, Yeager IS A member here and name calling and personal attacks aren't allowed against other members if anyone cares.
And James Yeager is a good man who has given the shirt off his back for many people. I don't like people talking **** about someone I consider a friend.
Be like Kirk and argue against their opinions using reason and facts to back it up. Don't make personal attacks that hold no water.
Also he actively fights to defend and protect our second Amendment rights and prepare and better fellow citizens for the fight of their life and some it has actually saved their liveds and others! Fact.
So,next time people wanna bash Yeager, before you type your hate post, take time and write an email or make a phone call to your elected officials and voice an opinion first. Then at least you will have done something productive that day
Last edited:
From him or anyone else most likely.
It's ok to not agree with all the things he teaches (like press checks, some other instructors teach them and he doesn't) but saying that EVERYTHING he teaches is wrong is just ridiculous in my opinion.
He taught classes at Thunder Ranch with Clint Smith as one of his students ... that alone tells you the guy is legit (unless of course you also think Clint Smith is a fraud as well).
And even if you disagree with his training, and his political views, you can still treat the man with some respect and be nice with him.Especially since he's not here to be able to respond to insults.
Like you said he seems to be a pretty stellar individual that would give the shirt off his back to help a fellow human being.
I did not click the video but if he's against the gubmint dipping into our state CCW then I'm against it. I have a lifetime permit why would I want some elected officials from NY or Mass or CA to have a say in that?
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
I think this is the problem, Yeager is under a complete misapprehension of the proposed statutes. It's like that kids' game of telephone.
Yeager needs a Smithers to clue him in from time to time.
Last edited:
He seems to be assuming that states have the right to regulate or eliminate carry.
...and therein lies the fallacy.
Under his theory, how is McDonald not an infringement on states' rights? The federal government (though a court) telling states that they may not eliminate carry? Preposterous! How dare they! Seems like Yeager would rather have onerous state firearm laws stand than have the feds tell a state that they don't have the "right" to regulate.
...and therein lies the fallacy.
Under his theory, how is McDonald not an infringement on states' rights? The federal government (though a court) telling states that they may not eliminate carry? Preposterous! How dare they! Seems like Yeager would rather have onerous state firearm laws stand than have the feds tell a state that they don't have the "right" to regulate.
INGOtastic syllogism:
I am against federal legislation imposing concealed carry laws.
Yeager is against federal legislation imposing concealed carry laws.
Therefore, I am reassessing my view of federal legislation imposing concealed carry laws.
I am against federal legislation imposing concealed carry laws.
Yeager is against federal legislation imposing concealed carry laws.
Therefore, I am reassessing my view of federal legislation imposing concealed carry laws.
If I didn't hate syllogisms so much, I'd propose my own, something like this:
I am in favor of loosening restrictions on concealed carry at every level of government.
A federal concealed carry law that provides reciprocity loosens concealed carry restrictions.
Therefore, I am in favor of a federal concealed carry law that provides reciprocity.
But let's be clear, I am not proposing this as a syllogism as I hate syllogisms. I will admit, this non-proposed syllogism is not very INGOtastic as it includes such concepts or incrementalism, pragmatism and realistic goals.
Dueling syllogisms. I'm down with it.
Federal intervention makes everything better.
Dramatic federal intervention in states' positions on carrying firearms has been proposed.
Therefore, the federal intervention can only lead to rainbows, unicorns, and Deadpool 3.
Federal intervention makes everything better.
Dramatic federal intervention in states' positions on carrying firearms has been proposed.
Therefore, the federal intervention can only lead to rainbows, unicorns, and Deadpool 3.
Now who hates syllogisms?
I don't have anything against Yeager, he has his opinions - some of which I agree with and some that I do not. I agree that usually when the government sticks their nose into things that it is normally followed up with their hands in our pockets and the whole thing being a disaster.
I agree with that proposition most especially where government fingerprints are not all over something already, but.....
Being a relatively new member here, I don't know much about Mr. Yeager or his history, but, after watching the video, I do believe he has totally missed the boat, as Kirk has pointed out.
As for the Article V convention proponents, I say, be careful of what you ask for. There are enough people in America today who think that the First and Second Amendments are totally outdated (e.g., the "hate speech exception people") who might be able to tip the delegates' opinions and persuade ratification of whatever comes out of the convention. Remember, it was about one hundred years ago when enough Americans thought (or had to say they thought) Prohibition was a good idea, too.
As for the Article V convention proponents, I say, be careful of what you ask for. There are enough people in America today who think that the First and Second Amendments are totally outdated (e.g., the "hate speech exception people") who might be able to tip the delegates' opinions and persuade ratification of whatever comes out of the convention. Remember, it was about one hundred years ago when enough Americans thought (or had to say they thought) Prohibition was a good idea, too.
