Gun Company CEO Threatens to Kill People if Obama Bans Assault Weapons

Perfectly rational:

The CEO of a Tennessee company that specializes in weapons and tactical training is threatening to “start killing people” if President Barack Obama moves forward with gun control measures.

In a video posted to YouTube and Facebook on Wednesday, Tactical Response CEO James Yeager went ballistic over reports that the president could take executive action with minor gun control measures after the mass shooting of 20 school children in Connecticut last month.

After the Drudge Report likened Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin on Wednesday, pro-gun conservatives expressed outrage over the idea that the White House could act without Congress.

“Vice President [Joe] Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control,” Yeager explained in his video message. “Fuck that.”

“I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.”

The CEO concluded: “I’m not fucking putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”


  1. “I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

    If they introduced legislation banning the severely mentally ill from owning firearms then half of these “second amendment advocates” would find themselves defenseless.

  2. Clearly, this guy doesn’t grasp the concept of mob mentality. And when someone with a perceived position of leadership is making the call to arms, it gets much worse.

    Even if he doesn’t “fire the first shot” (or any shot), the blood’s on his hands for inciting it. Charles Manson never killed anyone either, and he’s in prison for doing somewhat the same thing.

  3. Isn’t that threatening the life of the president and/or the vice president? Doesn’t that qualify him for at least serious interrogation by the FBI?

  4. Whether this guy does time for making such serious threats during such a delicate time or not I hope he ends up not being able to own anything more dangerous than a box of pastels.

  5. People like this who use the 2nd Amendment argument to defend their gun rights have it all wrong. The 2nd Amendment no longer has real value, except to these freaks.

    It’s not meant to be protection against our own government. (Like an assault rifle would work against drone aircraft, or a mortar round.) It is meant to provide protection against other government threats. It was drafted at a time when this country had no ‘standing army,’ because we had only recently won independence from England and its standing army.
    Once we formed our own armed services (including the National Guard), we no longer needed to arm ourselves against the threat of other governments.

    With regard to this clown killing people, I’d like the media to focus on him. They need to ask exactly who he would kill. Ask him how he would kill those people. Ask him if he plans to go into a school. Or if he’s planning to hide atop a building and use a sniper rifle. Ask him if he understands what makes a “good person with a gun,” and what makes a “bad person with a gun.”

    This person needs to be made an example of why we don’t need to lay so much power at the feet of the NRA.

    1. No, it also applies to our own government, in case it got too power hungry and the citizenry needed to rise up and take it out.

      But in so many ways it IS outdated, simply because the government’s technology has far outstripped what’s available to the general populace.

      You also don’t hear too much about the Third Amendment anymore, either….because it simply doesn’t apply these days, and hasn’t for a long, long time.

      1. I still don’t think it was meant for protecting against our own government. The Founding Fathers were pretty wary of established armies, particularly during peacetime. However, if there was a need (like if England tried to overtake America), a well-armed militia would be suitable to protect this nation. The U.S. government would call on its own people — who were guaranteed the right to own guns — to put down any attempt to overtake our freedoms.
        The ‘well-armed militia’ pretty much became the National Guard. And we have armed services.

      2. @ Dale, Smittypap

        I can’t see how ANY reading of the second amendment can interpret it as pertaining only to invasion by foreign governments. It’s pretty unambiguous that the aim is to prevent tyranny – and there’s nothing at all to suggest that this would need to be imposed from outwith government (imagine a President declaring himself King, or President-for-Life, say; or a government ruling that the Constitution is not binding…).

        As to the ‘treason’ question, the Constitution itself is pretty limited in its definition of treason – and it is defined in terms of making war against the United States, not against the government thereof. The government, constitutionally, derives its authority from the people – and thus I think a probable interpretation would be that a tyrannous government not be protected by the constitutional definition of treason. I’m sure that insurrection would be treason under later laws, but not under the terms of the constitution if the insurrection was in response to tyranny.

        If fact it is the right to bear arms in self-defence that is not obviously constitutional. That has been established as ‘constitutional’ in legal rulings, so it has that status now, but it is clearly not specified in the second amendment.

        My own opinion is that the amendment protects the right to keep and carry weapons without restriction, but that this has no implications for their use except in the contexts of maintaing a well-regulated militia for resisting tyranny, and resisting tyranny itself. That doesn’t preclude a legal right to use weapons for hunting, in self defence, in sport, etc. (indeed, the founders probably assumed that self-defence rights would be taken for granted), it just means that such rights were never guaranteed by the constitution. It also means that any constraint at all – up to and including bans on full-automatic weapons, ground-to-air missile launchers, etc! – is actually and explicitly unconstitutional (logically, overthrowing a tyrannical government weould require being armed sufficiently well to wage war – not just to bust a cap in a burglar’s head).

        I do think the second amendment is more than a little inappropriate and irrelevant in the contemporary world, but I’m convinced that’s how it should be read.

  6. “I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot”

    And it was the most patriotic 3 minutes ever….to paraphrase a twitter note I saw.

  7. The ironic thing is, if this guy really did decide to start ‘killing people,’ he would, most likely, be killed by a good guy with a gun.

    We would then begin a debate on whether gun regulations are strict enough and whether the government should just go further to ban or limit firearms.

    So in his haste to use violent measures to prove his point, he would only further prove the point of his opponent.

  8. I think he’s a victim of the same kind of self-imposed informational bubble that a lot of people are living with these days.

    My guess is that he never really thought about how extreme his own stance was becoming, not because he is incapable of recognizing it, but because he hasn’t allowed himself to be exposed to anyone that might have pointed it out to him before now. I can almost guarantee that he has neither seen nor heard much pro gun control rhetoric in a long time, either in the media or among his friends, because he actively avoids it. What little he has been exposed to has already been passed through a pro gun rights filter which only allows the most extreme, idiotic, and obviously wrong gun control arguments through because they are the easiest ones to address or just plain dismiss. Unfortunately if that’s the only thing you ever hear from gun control advocates, even if it’s your own fault, you begin to perceive them as extreme, idiotic, and obviously wrong, and you may even begin to believe that they are genuinely dangerous. That’s where he was at when he made the video.

    That said, sometimes all it takes is seeing other people’s reactions to what you’ve just said and/or done to open your eyes to your own stupidity. Here’s hoping that the overwhelmingly negative reaction to his video will be a catalyst for the moment of clarity that he so desperately needs.

Comments are closed.