It was said, Obama was going to issue an executive order to deal with the gun ban issue .

Based upon that news, he may have felt justified. (Although he was stupid to be so vocal.)

We don't live under a Dictatorship or a Monarchy.  

Don't kid yourself, thinking there are not others, who feel the same way he does.

Keep pushing for gun control, as did the abolitionist did to abolish slavery, and this Nation may find itself again, in another civil war.

You may believe these people would back down to prevent civil war, but that would be a fatal error.

Of course the members of the standing army, the forefathers feared, would have to choose which side of the issue, they would defend.

A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment or an allowance of infringement which some folks who swore an oath to defend against. 

VP Bidens' remarks should be construed, as inciting a rebellion to which this gentleman proved,  he was incited to do violence.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/12/ceo-who-said-he-would-start-killin...

Yeager has a new video out where he eats crow retracting everything he said in his previous videos and apologizing.

He's getting his first real world lesson on the Bill of Rights. I'm guessing someone explained to him that threats of violence and incitement to violence is not protected by the first amendment. I can just imagine him saying, the first amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, what part of make no law don't you understand. Just as he says, what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand..

Like most of these gun nut blowhards, when faced with possible arrest he backed down and retracted all his statements. No 1776 revolution, no shooting people, no armed "defense" of his second amendment rights. I'm not worried by Yeager or Alex Jones or the other gun nuts threatening another civil war. If congress can get its act together and pass some reasonable and responsible gun control the gun nuts will accept it and we'll move on. Delusional they might be but it takes a unusual type of crazy to decide to commit suicide by cop and they are not that crazy.

What Yeager doesn't understand is no right is unlimited. Not the first amendment, not the second.

Scalia makes this very clear in DC v Heller.

 Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.  For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.   nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

I don't know any NRA member who hasn't said repeatedly; enforce the laws already on the books.

The NRA is in favor of harsh penalties, for those who use guns inappropriately or unlawfully or if a court determines, your rights as a citizen are to be taken away, forfeited

Rather than the  Gun Ban nuts continually quoting Scalia, have you ever reviewed, what laws on the books the NRA supports or does it serve your agenda, to ignore the truth, because it serves your purpose better, to spread lies and misinformation?

Why would anybody, especially a liberal even quote Scalia, a conservative judge?

If he ruled that your right to assemble, is to be revoked or your right to privacy shall be eliminated, You telling me, you'd agree?

Scalia stated" Heller did not decide"

@ 1:27

Peacock and the Crane

The fight goes on over the bill of rights, civil rights and freedoms, as it always has.I'm sure many people here are active in these battles. Its not won with guns but with people. If enough people are willing to nonviolently fight for rights they will win. If there's not enough people all the guns in the world will not work. Does anyone think gays would get their civil rights quicker if they armed themselves and went to war.

There's a group that calls itself the Rainbow Family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Gathering

They gather once a year ove the Fourth of July in a national forest, 5,000 to 30,000 people. The forest service for years has tried to stop them. They believe they have a First Amendment right to gather. Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people peaceable to assemble.

There are frequent confrontations between the Rainbow Family and the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hAx5G0I9mU

There's a lot to be said about First Amendment issues and the Rainbow Family's right to gather. Its a complex issue, not a black and white issue. And there is a lot to be said about this video of  nonviolent confrontation between the Rainbow Family and the police. I don't share it as an unqualified good against tyranny. Its a complex issue and situation, not black and white. But it did successfully remove the police blockade.

The situation was volatile and dangerous enough without the Rainbow Family being armed. Does anyone think putting AR-15's in the hands of the Rainbow Family during this confrontation would have helped? At any rate guns weren't needed. Nonviolent protest achieved the objective.

If you have the people you don't need the guns, in fact guns hinder achieving the purpose. If you don't have the people all the guns in the world will not work.

Second Amend a Doomsday provision, 

@13

328 F.3d 567

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/328/328.F3d.567.01-15098.html

"But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we're none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.

9

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.

11

The majority falls prey to the delusion — popular in some circles — that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process.

In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

12

All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

13

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

39

As Blackstone describes the "natural right" of an Englishman to keep and bear arms, the arms are for personal defense as well as resistance to tyranny. ………….. A substantial part of the debate in Congress on the Fourteenth Amendment was its necessity to enable blacks to protect themselves from White terrorism and tyranny in the South.53 Private terrorist organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, were abetted by southern state governments' refusal to protect black citizens, and the violence of such groups could only be realistically resisted with private firearms. When the state itself abets organized terrorism, the right of the people to keep and bear arms against a tyrant becomes inseparable from the right to self-defense."