Florida School Shooting At Least 17 Dead

[UCSMiami]

That's a bad link. The armed forces doesn't take all able bodied males 17 years old last I checked.

take it with bro buick. He posted the CFR reference. i just went to the .gov site where it led to.

 

[jimbuick]

You can't just "disagree" with fact, dude. You can have whatever opinion you want about what the militia today should be, but the intention of the term at the time of the founding is well defined and supported. Your definition is not in line with the definition used by the men who wrote the Constitution. There is no argument to be had about that and it is literally the only thing you could possibly be arguing with me about, since it is the only thing I have said about it.

 

[UCSMiami]

You can't just "disagree" with fact, dude. You can have whatever opinion you want about what the militia today should be, but the intention of the term at the time of the founding is well defined and supported. Your definition is not in line with the definition used by the men who wrote the Constitution. There is no argument to be had about that.

Actually there were two militas, organized and unorganized, I chose to focus on the one that was the political issue worth including in the BoR because that is what poses a threat to tyrannical govt. Everyone being the militia is nothing vs. an armed body of men trained in arms. That is what a Govt fears. The BoR is a political statement. and in my view the part dealing with the 2nd Amend so indicated in the FPapers comments about resisting tyranny or foreign invasion.

Unfortunately relevance to today is an issue as no one expects an armed mob, the militia, to participate in the complexity that is modern warfare or in maintaining civil order as was thought possible then.

ah well. whatever. Courts decide fortunately and not the militia.

This is like arguing a the relevance of the 3rd Amend. quartering soldier's in private homes. Sufficiently weighty then to be included in the BoR yet a WTF today.

 

[thebigt]

Woody...or anyone else with a legal background...

I would be interested to hear an interpretation of what obligation or limitation is on mental health care providers regarding deeming a person a risk to themselves or others. are they required to or prohibited from notifying law enforcement?

 

[youngandfree]

take it with bro buick. He posted the CFR reference. i just went to the .gov site where it led to.

So does the military take all able bodied men at 17 years old?

 

[UCSMiami]

So does the military take all able bodied men at 17 years old?

In an extreme situation maybe they could. Probably used for manpower planning for the next year to know how many males are available.

Here is where it leads to

TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of
all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age
and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made
a declaration of intention to become, citizens of
the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National
Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of
the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of
the members of the militia who are not members
of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Refers to Armed Forces and how they define what a militia is they can draw recruits from. which is fairly obvious if we go further into reserve occupations in the following para:

Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia
duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the
United States, the several States, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except
members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in
the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals,
and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of,
or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of
religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a
combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding
of that belief is established under such regulations
as the President may prescribe. However,
such a person is not exempt from militia
duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

obviously created before there was common air travel and after 1917. Interesting to know how old this CFR is and when created
If we go into the next section we have this beauty:

Sec. 332 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Makes me remember that famous scene in The Fugitive where Tommy Lee Jones as a Federal Deputy Marshal is using a bunch of bubbas [the militia] to track down his fugitive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_Adax_ZvhE

 

[youngandfree]

In an extreme situation maybe they could.

Here is where it leads to

TITLE 10—ARMED FORCES
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of
all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age
and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
under 45 years of age who are, or who have made
a declaration of intention to become, citizens of
the United States and of female citizens of the
United States who are members of the National
Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of
the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of
the members of the militia who are not members
of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Refers to Armed Forces and how they define what a militia is they can draw recruits from. which is fairly obvious if we go further into reserve occupations in the following para:

Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia
duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the
United States, the several States, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except
members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in
the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals,
and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of,
or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of
religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a
combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding
of that belief is established under such regulations
as the President may prescribe. However,
such a person is not exempt from militia
duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

obviously created before there was common air travel and after 1917. Interesting to know how old this CFR is and when created
If we go into the next section we have this beauty:

Sec. 332 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Makes me remember that famous scene in The Fugitive where Tommy Lee Jones as a Federal Deputy Marshal is using a bunch of bubbas [the militia] to track down his fugitive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_Adax_ZvhE

So it clearly defines a distinction between US Armed Forces/military and a/the militia.

 

[LiveToLift]

How in the hell did this thread turn into a 3 page debate on what a militia is? ?*

 

[ax1]

Dump now is moving to ban Bump Stocks https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17033526/trump-guns-mass-shootings-parkland-las-vegas

As I always say, Dump is just like the rest of them, all the same!

 

[rascal14]

A ban on bump stocks is perfectly logical. If you want an automatic rifle, you should go through all the hoops everyone else has to.

 

[UCSMiami]

How in the hell did this thread turn into a 3 page debate on what a militia is? ��*

Yo Rocky read dis

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[jimbuick]

A ban on bump stocks is perfectly logical. If you want an automatic rifle, you should go through all the hoops everyone else has to.

Bump stocks are dumb in general. TBF, the guy probably would have done more damage without it than with it, but I really don't GAF if they ban them. They are dumb, and don't even look like a fun range toy.

 

[jimbuick]

How in the hell did this thread turn into a 3 page debate on what a militia is? ?*

All it takes is a single statement of fact that another poster then assigns all kinds of other arguments to and away we go.

 

[ax1]

Bump stocks are dumb in general. TBF, the guy probably would have done more damage without it than with it, but I really don't GAF if they ban them. They are dumb, and don't even look like a fun range toy.

You should give a F' cause the process of banning them will probably be 20 million bucks and a bunch of congressional dinners at 7k a plate. Maybe a round of golf or 2 for a few select at the Dump course in florida costing an extra 2 million a hole.

 

[jimbuick]

You should give a F' cause the process of banning them will probably be 20 million bucks and a bunch of congressional dinners at 7k a plate.

So a typical Friday night for Congress?

 

[rascal14]

Bump stocks are dumb in general. TBF, the guy probably would have done more damage without it than with it, but I really don't GAF if they ban them. They are dumb, and don't even look like a fun range toy.

Yeah, just wastes ammo. Lol

 

[rascal14]

You should give a F' cause the process of banning them will probably be 20 million bucks and a bunch of congressional dinners at 7k a plate. Maybe a round of golf or 2 for a few select at the Dump course in florida costing an extra 2 million a hole.

The process isn’t our fault, government spending is ridiculous. Atleast with this the ridiculous spending would end in something worthwhile. Not much else can be done until the morons are out of office.

 

[UCSMiami]

All it takes is a single statement of fact that another poster then assigns all kinds of other arguments to and away we go.

Hahaha the passive-aggressive butt hurt in your post hahahaha

 

[jimbuick]

Still better than the ignorance and reading comprehension issues expressed by all of yours.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[UCSMiami]

Still better than the ignorance and reading comprehension issues expressed by all of yours.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

hahahaha. Yea the copy/paster and misleading one at that vs. the text guy.

Brave new world.

Enjoy your day

 

[jimbuick]

hahahaha. Yea the copy/paster and misleading one at that vs. the text guy.

Brave new world.

Enjoy your day

Feel free to read back through and find my posts that were arguing any of the things you spent all day arguing against then. They are all there and none have been edited.

 

[UCSMiami]

Feel free to read back through and find my posts that were arguing any of the things you spent all day arguing against then. They are all there and none have been edited.

Goes for you as well.

 

[jimbuick]

Too easy bud.

In my view the militia was the responsible body of men of any town, city, etc. who would drill and be used to supplement the regular army or act against it if the Federal Gov't chose to be tyrannical.

Here you define what you believe the militia to have been at that time. Notice the past tense.

That is not how the founders defined the militia.

My statement that the framers did not, in fact, define it as such. Notice there is no argument about gun control, or anything else. Really no argument at all. Just a statement.

Oh well. I disagree. I am not a Constitutional expert. I do read books instead of blogs and SM. Maybe you are an expert. A one line answer suggests you are not. That is the typical sound bite put forward by the uninformed and unthinking masses of the Right and the Left. Just edit to suit your cognitive block.

Rude response in retaliation.

No, it isn't. It is well documented in the Federalist Papers (among other sources).

I inform you that their definition is well established throughout primary sources. Still no argument about anything relating to gun control, modern applicability, etc.

Which you apparently are unable to explain at length.

If you start saying people have firearms to defend themselves against our Govt in this day and age and folks will see you as a nut. Which is what has occurred in the decades past where armed groups have tried to defend themselves against perceived Govt injustice. Even the informal militia's of the early 1990s were viewed as societal outcasts and threats to the country. That same overreaching Govt is what has allowed us to prosper privately and protect us from internal/external threats for most of us to achieve a lifestyle beyond what was available at the time of the Const. or even decades ago. Doubt anyone will take up arms against the Govt if they over-reach. Get a lawyer instead.

Layers of our Rights have been traded off to account for a modern and violent world and the need for the Govt to set standards and criteria.

2nd Amend is important and needs to be protected. One needs to speak in a manner not to have the other side think we are nuts when debating the topic. We can defend it better by putting forward explanations in line with modern society.

Another rude comment followed by an essay about things I never said.

Sure, I will waste my valuable time to educate you. Since Google is apparently too hard to operate.

Federalist No. 29



George Mason at the Virginia ratifying convention, in a lengthy argument against a standing military and for the militia as the only source of military power in the U.S. (as any military would pale in comparison to the sheer size and power of the armed populace), with state appointed officers and a body of citizen soldiers who could only be called to serve the govt under martial law said:



I prefer to use the primary source, since I believe it to be more compelling than my own words. There are more, of course, but I don't have the time to break down every debate and paper that refers to the militia for you.

Retaliatory response quoting the primary sources that support my singular statement about the definition of the militia at the time of the founding. Still no argument about modern interpretation or gun control.

I do not need you to educate me I needed you to explain in your own words what or why you stated what you did. You have provided very little of that other than to copy/paste a 200 year exchange of unofficial information(because it is not in the actual Const. or BoR) as if it were still relevant today. The type of argument that will not convince a modern reader as they will equate the FF with allowing slavery, barring women from voting, etc. Do you actually have any interpretative thought of you own?

There is no militia anymore in our modern society. Militia concept destroyed by the Civil War when it was shown to be a threat. Govt. intervention in our lives much more necessary, accepted and craved. Over-reach is settled courts.

Some of those first 10 Amend. dealt with issues present in the FF mind as a result of events leading to Rev.War- British quartering troops, British seizing armaments from the militia, British seizing persons, British martial law, British control of press.

The premise of the 2nd Amend. was compromised long ago and replaced with a massive Law Enf and military presence and judiciary. What would be expected as the centuries have moved forward. There was no standing army at the time of the Const and Law enf. was minimal. Resorting to armed violence would be a natural response. Not now

Have to roll with the times if you expect to win this latest assault on firearms.

Argument from you about modern interpretation and convincing the modern reader of the utility of the 2a. Things that I never said anything about.

What are you going on about? I am not trying to convince any reader about the current state of the 2a. You incorrectly defined the militia and I simply stated that your definition of it did not fall in line with that of the founders.

Which you said you disagreed with. I pointed out that it was well defined in the primary sources and you asked me to support that (actually, you accused me of being incapable of doing so).

Me explaining that I never made any such argument and reiterating the fact that I was only supporting the singular statement from my first post.

Exactly what I wrote. Any damn fool can copy/paste. Doc. is 200 years old. I work with documents 120 years old and see where language and meaning has changed.

If you only have as your argument to copy/paste docs without having the intellect to explain continued relevance today then you do your argument a disservice.

Anti-gunners laugh when they hear a pro-gunner state I have a Right to firearms to defend myself against the government. Anyone today would. I am a pro-firearm ownership person and own a few that might be banned and see the concept as ludicrous.

Few insults from you and more posting about modern applicability.

You posted something that was not in line with the founders usage of the term "militia," and I pointed that out. Nothing more, nothing less.It was never an argument. It was a statement of fact. I never used it to justify whether or not there should or shouldn't be restriction. You made a statement that was not in line with the founders usage of a term. I pointed out the discrepancy and showed it to be the case.

You are trying to assign something to me that I have never done.

Clarifying (again) that I was never making any argument about the applicability of the militia in modern times and was only stating the fact that your original definition was incorrect.

If you disagree to a statement put up why, not "not so", which adds nothing to a discussion. Did you actually believe that added anything to the discussion?

I was correct in my description of the militia. If you elect to disagree that is fine. If you elect to believe you are correct and I am not that is fine as well. Yeomanry as in one of your copy/paste is not everyone.

Telling me I didn't explain why your definition wasn't in line with the founders after I had literally shown them explicitly stating what their definition was.

Insisting that your definition was correct even after being provided with the sources that explicitly state that it isn't.

I posted a singular statement informing you that you were incorrect. That isn't rude. Implying that someone is part of the "uninformed masses" "parroting" things they don't understand from "blogs and SM" is.

This isn't a difference of opinion. Your definition of the militia is different from how it was intended by the founders. Period. It isn't opinion. It is explicitly stated throughout the primary sources, some of which having been provided as evidence.

Whether or not that definition should still be applied is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about historical fact. You made an assertion about the militia that is not in line with the founders intention. I pointed that out and provided the source of that fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

Repeating the fact that I never made any argument about applicability of the founder's definition of militia. Again stating that I was only taking issue with your incorrect statement as to the definition of militia at the time of the founding.

Like, I don't know what is so difficult about this. In this matter, my opinion is irrelevant. The statement is that your opinion of the militia is not in line with the framers usage of the term. Thus, the way to prove that would be through the primary sources written by the framers.

Again reiterating that I am not making any of the arguments you keep attempting to attribute to me.



Perhaps that can clear it all up for you.

 

[UCSMiami]

Too easy bud.



Here you def in what you believe the militia to have been at that time. Notice the past tense.



My statement that the framers did not, in fact, define it as such. Notice there is no argument about gun control, or anything else. Really no argument at all. Just a statement.



Rude response in retaliation.



I inform you that their definition is well established throughout primary sources. Still no argument about anything relating to gun control, modern applicability, etc.



Another rude comment followed by an essay about things I never said.




Retaliatory response quoting the primary sources that support my singular statement about the definition of the militia at the time of the founding. Still no argument about modern interpretation or gun control.



Argument from you about modern interpretation and convincing the modern reader of the utility of the 2a. Things that I never said anything about.



Me explaining that I never made any such argument and reiterating the fact that I was only supporting the singular statement from my first post.



Few insults from you and more posting about modern applicability.



Clarifying (again) that I was never making any argument about the applicability of the militia in modern times and was only stating the fact that your original definition was incorrect.



Telling me I didn't explain why your definition wasn't in line with the founders after I had literally shown them explicitly stating what their definition was.

Insisting that your definition was correct even after being provided with the sources that explicitly state that it isn't.


Repeating the fact that I never made any argument about applicability of the founder's definition of militia. Again stating that I was only taking issue with your incorrect statement aa to rhe definition of militia at the time of the founding.



Again reiterating that I am not making any of the arguments you keep attempting to attribute to me.



Perhaps that can clear it all up for you.

Well I clearly wrote "in my view the the militia was ..." which as the 2nd armed states is the "well regulated militia." Which is the responsible citizenry,etc.etc..
So that scotches everything else.

I will stop there to let that point sink in. You missed it from the get go. Probably as you missed everything else.

Seriously what you did above is pure childish stuff. This is like City-Data POC

 

[jimbuick]

No, it doesn't. You stated an incorrect opinion about what the definition of the term was when it was used.

I stated that that opinion was incorrect.

You can't use your own definition of the phrase and try to apply that to what the founders intended.

It doesn't scratch anything else away just because you put "in my view" before saying something that is wrong.

And it certainly doesn't just make the fact that you continually argued against things that were never said (whilst being incredibly rude) just disappear.

 

[UCSMiami]

No, it doesn't. You stated an incorrect opinion about what the definition of the term was when it was used.

I stated that that opinion was incorrect.

You can't use your own definition of the phrase and try to apply that to what the founders intended.

It doesn't scratch anything else away just because you put "in my view" before saying something that is wrong.

And it certainly doesn't just make the fact that you continually argued against things that were never said (whilst being incredibly rude) just disappear.

My opinion of what the term is is correct. That is where we disagree.

None of the docs you posted contradict what I wrote.

Well if you post more than one liners and copy/past docs without any further exp. I have to presume where you are going at.

I did love the I will let the primary docs speak for themselves and as I wrote back you have no original thoughts of your own which apparently is the case.

I also loved your misleading post regarding the CFR link.

 

[jimbuick]

Yeah, the misleading U.S. statute that explicitly defines the militia as "all able bodied male citizens aged 17-45." Very misleading.

 

[UCSMiami]

Yeah, the misleading U.S. statute that explicitly defines the militia as "all able bodied male citizens aged 17-45." Very misleading.

How does that relate to the 2nd Amendment?

 

[jimbuick]

Which part of "I haven't been talking about the 2a and am only talking about your initial incorrect statement" are you continually missing.

I quoted it all above for you, so you don't even have to flip through the pages.

 

[UCSMiami]

Which part of "I haven't been talking about the 2a and am only talking about your initial incorrect statement" are you continually missing.

I quoted it all above for you, so you don't even have to flip through the pages.

Well my context is the militia within the 2nd amendment. Obvious from the get-go.

 

[jimbuick]

Well my context is the militia within the 2nd amendment. Obvious from the get-go.

Which is why you must use the founder's definition of the term.

(It is also why arguments relating to that term are stupid. One side is based upon total ignorance of the meaning of the term, as defined by the many primary sources from the time, and the other ignores modern applicability and legal precedent)

 

[youngandfree]

So not 1, but 4 Broward deputies stayed outside and didn't go in to the school to engage the shooter. I was willing to give the SRO a pass, but if other deputies responded and they still waited, I'm not so sure. Especially considering how the Sherriff's dept failed to do anything leading up to it after their calls to service regarding the shooter.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27523/breaking-cnn-reports-four-broward-county-deputies-ben-shapiro?utm_********facebook&************social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_**********dwbrand

 

[thebigt]

scot Israel is definitely no Charles moose!!!

moose had tons of integrity while Israel has none!!!

 

[ax1]

Can any of you guys recollect and story that the shooter was decked to the balls in armor?

“All of a sudden I heard gun shots in the stairwell, which is about 20 feet away from my room, and then kids were screaming and running back towards me, towards the end of the hallway,” she explained. “So, I just went in this very strange autopilot mode where I pivoted on my feet and unlocked my door, and kids just started pouring in my room. I don’t know how many kids were in there, but I was pulling them in and shouting at them to get in the room.”

“Then I suddenly saw the shooter, about 20 feet from me, standing at the end of the hallway, actively shooting down the hallway – just a barrage of bullets. And I’m staring at him thinking, ‘Why is the police here? This is strange.’ He was in full metal garb – helmet, face mask, bulletproof armor, shooting this rifle that I’d never seen before.”

 

[ax1]

Speaking to a WSVN Miami News 7 reporter, an emergency medical responder who was one of the first at the scene, said law enforcement did not follow mass casualty event protocols.

Reporter Brian Entin published comments from the responder – who did not want to be identified for fear of reprisal – on Twitter Saturday.

(Source: ABC news reporter's twitter account https://twitter.com/BrianEntin?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://www.infowars.com/parkland-first-responder-i-was-told-to-stand-down-i-could-have-saved-lives/)

 

[thebigt]

ax1...there are many disturbing reports coming out about the shooting.....but at least info is coming out-unlike the vegas shooting where it seems there is a total lockdown on information!!!!!!

 

[ax1]

ax1...there are many disturbing reports coming out about the shooting.....but at least info is coming out-unlike the vegas shooting where it seems there is a total lockdown on information!!!!!!

Wow forgot that even happened!

I wondering now if the deputy/s that stood outside hiding behind cars were told to do so. I would like to hear their side of the story directly from them if they havent done so already.

 

[thebigt]

Wow forgot that even happened!

I wondering now if the deputy/s that stood outside hiding behind cars were told to do so. I would like to hear their side of the story directly from them if they havent done so already.

Peterson[the school cop]gave an interview today-he say's he is no coward....

 

[jimbuick]

Officer's statement:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/26/florida-deputy-who-didnt-enter-school-during-mass-shooting-is-not-coward-lawyer-says.html

 

[thebigt]

Officer's statement:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/26/florida-deputy-who-didnt-enter-school-during-mass-shooting-is-not-coward-lawyer-says.html

i'll give the man his right to his side of the story...but it seems odd that the students would be running out of the building if the shooter were outside?

 

[justhere4comm]

Maybe this has been stated already.

"I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon,” the Associated Press reported Trump as saying during a meeting with governors Monday.

Odd thing for President Bone Spur / 4 deferments to say.

I really believe he's a coward.

 

[jimbuick]

I don't know why everyone keeps trying to equate not wanting to fight in the Vietnam war to this, they aren't the same.

Additionally, Trump's comments are no different than everything everyone else has been saying they would do in that situation, nor is it an unreasonable thing for a person to believe.

 

[thebigt]

Maybe this has been stated already.

"I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon,” the Associated Press reported Trump as saying during a meeting with governors Monday.

Odd thing for President Bone Spur / 4 deferments to say.

I really believe he's a coward.

if everyone who got a deferment during nam is a coward.....college kids for example!!!

 

[ax1]

i'll give the man his right to his side of the story...but it seems odd that the students would be running out of the building if the shooter were outside?

So he thought the shooter is outside, thats why he immediately ran into the building after backup came along, ROFL!!!!!!!

 

[ax1]

I don't know why everyone keeps trying to equate not wanting to fight in the Vietnam war to this, they aren't the same.

Additionally, Trump's comments are no different than everything everyone else has been saying they would do in that situation, nor is it an unreasonable thing for a person to believe.

Dump said the right thing, I would sure hope he would say that.

Remember, Dump can announce his favorite color is blue tomorrow and then we will have an entire week on how he hates Mexicans again.

 

[thebigt]

Dump said the right thing, I would sure hope he would say that.

Remember, Dump can announce his favorite color is blue tomorrow and then we will have an entire week on how he hates Mexicans again.

lol...sad but true!!!

 

[Aleksandar37]

Dump said the right thing, I would sure hope he would say that.

Remember, Dump can announce his favorite color is blue tomorrow and then we will have an entire week on how he hates Mexicans again.

It goes the other way too. If Obama made the same move that Trump just did against the NRA after a school shooting, there are people in this very thread that would be calling him a traitor. Yet Trump does it and they're still sucking his ****.

 

[Aleksandar37]

Maybe this has been stated already.

"I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon,” the Associated Press reported Trump as saying during a meeting with governors Monday.

Odd thing for President Bone Spur / 4 deferments to say.

I really believe he's a coward.

Hopefully after he's out of the White House, that can be his new Fox reality game show: Put him in the situation and see what he'd actually do.

 

[thebigt]

Hopefully after he's out of the White House, that can be his new Fox reality game show: Put him in the situation and see what he'd actually do.

hitting the sauce again.eh?

 

[Aleksandar37]

hitting the sauce again.eh?

Oh the snowflake is getting bold again. Go grab a tissue before you start crying again like a little bitch.