caryking said:

---

SupplyChainPack said:

---

Sir, you just wiped out about 3/4 of our current federal government.

How dare you!

---

I didn't! The founders did.

---

That is a beautiful thing!

I honestly think that if the local governments want to let their towns burn then they should be allowed to. In saying that if you are a resident of the town or state that the rioters are burning down you should have to stay there and live through the incompetence of the officials that you elected...you shouldn't get to move somewhere that isn't having those problems and bring your vote for the same thing with you.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

Really, no one wants to see military personnel walking the streets of cities. I think its just a bad thought to think about that, in general... So, the mayor's, in each city, has to give instruction to the Police to stop this mess.

I believe in a constitutional government. The following are the enumerated federal powers:

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

All, that's it above for the federal government! Nothing more! And please read the original intent of the words before trying to understand what you think they mean.

So, we can speak about all the issues around the country and what should be done; however, most of the ideas, thoughts, possibilities, etc... need to either come the local governments or the people. The federal government has "Zero" jurisdiction over these matters.

---

This is not correct. The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the Federal Government the right to put troops in the street and it's been used by many President's including John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower. It's been modified a few times over the last two hundred plus years, but these three instances let the Federal Government bring troops to the streets.

If the local governments do not have the capacity to control the riots, then they can call up the National Guard. If the citizens of said state are in danger, then the President can unilaterally insert troops, but that is a last resort. I am not in favor of inserting actual troops, but the National Guard should and can be called up. After three nights of riots in Kenosha the Governor asked the President and they brought in the Guard and it's been reasonably quiet for the last 6 nights.
'
Edit: Hey I am a Constitutional guy and believe in the founding and the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I am a big believer in limited government, but this legislation is needed for times like these.

Here is the Wikipedia version of the part of the law I am referencing.

The Act empowers the U.S. president to call into service the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard:

• when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state ( 251),
• to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law ( 252), or
• to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights ( 253).

---

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/does-the-president-have-power-to-combat-domestic-violence/

caryking said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

This is not correct. The Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the Federal Government the right to put troops in the street and it's been used by many President's including John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower. It's been modified a few times over the last two hundred plus years, but these three instances let the Federal Government bring troops to the streets.

If the local governments do not have the capacity to control the riots, then they can call up the National Guard. If the citizens of said state are in danger, then the President can unilaterally insert troops, but that is a last resort. I am not in favor of inserting actual troops, but the National Guard should and can be called up. After three nights of riots in Kenosha the Governor asked the President and they brought in the Guard and it's been reasonably quiet for the last 6 nights.
'
Edit: Hey I am a Constitutional guy and believe in the founding and the enumerated powers of the Constitution. I am a big believer in limited government, but this legislation is needed for times like these.

Here is the Wikipedia version of the part of the law I am referencing.

The Act empowers the U.S. president to call into service the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard:

• when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state ( 251),
• to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law ( 252), or
• to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights ( 253).

---

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/06/does-the-president-have-power-to-combat-domestic-violence/

---

Yes I know about the tenth amendment, but if the local government is not protecting it's citizens, then the Federal Government should step in. I know there are differing opinions on this and it might have to go to the Supreme Court and even then who knows how they would rule. As I said it has been used many times. I would hope the Mayors and the Governors would step up, but they have failed their duties. Not everybody in those jurisdictions voted for those people. Who is looking out for their rights? Who is looking out for all the citizen's in those communities?

cowboypack02 said:

---

I honestly think that if the local governments want to let their towns burn then they should be allowed to. In saying that if you are a resident of the town or state that the rioters are burning down you should have to stay there and live through the incompetence of the officials that you elected...you shouldn't get to move somewhere that isn't having those problems and bring your vote for the same thing with you.

---

I made the same point earlier in relation to Portland, and got a lot of flack from conservatives here. I believe storm called it "tripe."
People get the government they deserve. I made allowances for that state government to intervene, but if BOTH the local and state government are telling the Feds to stay out, then they should. Federalism

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I honestly think that if the local governments want to let their towns burn then they should be allowed to. In saying that if you are a resident of the town or state that the rioters are burning down you should have to stay there and live through the incompetence of the officials that you elected...you shouldn't get to move somewhere that isn't having those problems and bring your vote for the same thing with you.

---

I made the same point earlier in relation to Portland, and got a lot of flack from conservatives here. I believe storm called it "tripe."
People get the government they deserve. I made allowances for that state government to intervene, but if BOTH the local and state government are telling the Feds to stay out, then they should. Federalism

---

Well, it is a ridiculous notion whether it comes from you or cowboy. Not everybody voted for the government that is in place. They deserve to be able to live in peace and have laws enforced. People don't "deserve" to live in fear because their local and state government have TDS.

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I honestly think that if the local governments want to let their towns burn then they should be allowed to. In saying that if you are a resident of the town or state that the rioters are burning down you should have to stay there and live through the incompetence of the officials that you elected...you shouldn't get to move somewhere that isn't having those problems and bring your vote for the same thing with you.

---

I made the same point earlier in relation to Portland, and got a lot of flack from conservatives here. I believe storm called it "tripe."
People get the government they deserve. I made allowances for that state government to intervene, but if BOTH the local and state government are telling the Feds to stay out, then they should. Federalism

---

I agree to an extent, but as Drummer pointed out above, not everyone voted these numbnuts into office. Regardless of their ineptitude, they have basics to uphold and they're not doing that. I don't think anyone should say eh 51% voted them in so screw the 49% catching the consequences. Again, these are just basics. I shouldn't have to worry about my mayor or governor doing nothing or even applauding folks burning down my business.

cowboypack02 said:

---

I honestly think that if the local governments want to let their towns burn then they should be allowed to. In saying that if you are a resident of the town or state that the rioters are burning down you should have to stay there and live through the incompetence of the officials that you elected...you shouldn't get to move somewhere that isn't having those problems and bring your vote for the same thing with you.

---

That is truly an astonishing phenomenon. These folks flee like rats from a sinking ship - the one that they destroyed with their own hands.
After all of that, they don't learn a thing. They just vote for and promote the same lunacy wherever they move to.

Here is a counter argument to what caryking posted about the tenth amendment and why the President should use the Insurrection Act.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-trump-should-read-black-lives-matter-riot-act-insurrection-act

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I honestly think that if the local governments want to let their towns burn then they should be allowed to. In saying that if you are a resident of the town or state that the rioters are burning down you should have to stay there and live through the incompetence of the officials that you elected...you shouldn't get to move somewhere that isn't having those problems and bring your vote for the same thing with you.

---

I made the same point earlier in relation to Portland, and got a lot of flack from conservatives here. I believe storm called it "tripe."
People get the government they deserve. I made allowances for that state government to intervene, but if BOTH the local and state government are telling the Feds to stay out, then they should. Federalism

---

Well, it is a ridiculous notion whether it comes from you or cowboy. Not everybody voted for the government that is in place. They deserve to be able to live in peace and have laws enforced. People don't "deserve" to live in fear because their local and state government have TDS.

---

You misunderstand me Pack.....the folks that didn't vote for that government should be allowed to leave if they want....the only folks who should have to stay are the people who voted for it to be that way

griff17matt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

I honestly think that if the local governments want to let their towns burn then they should be allowed to. In saying that if you are a resident of the town or state that the rioters are burning down you should have to stay there and live through the incompetence of the officials that you elected...you shouldn't get to move somewhere that isn't having those problems and bring your vote for the same thing with you.

---

I made the same point earlier in relation to Portland, and got a lot of flack from conservatives here. I believe storm called it "tripe."
People get the government they deserve. I made allowances for that state government to intervene, but if BOTH the local and state government are telling the Feds to stay out, then they should. Federalism

---

I agree to an extent, but as Drummer pointed out above, not everyone voted these numbnuts into office. Regardless of their ineptitude, they have basics to uphold and they're not doing that. I don't think anyone should say eh 51% voted them in so screw the 49% catching the consequences. Again, these are just basics. I shouldn't have to worry about my mayor or governor doing nothing or even applauding folks burning down my business.

---

Oregon is solidly blue. The violence is concentrated in Portland.

2016 Mayor Election results:
Ted Wheeler (D) - 55.5%
Another Democrat - 16.5%
Democratic Socialist - 12%
Republican - 3%

2020 Mayor election results:
Ted Wheeler (D) - 49%
Democratic Socialist - 24%
Another Democrat - 8.5%
Independent - 6%
Republican - 5%
There is now a runoff between Ted Wheeler and the Democratic Socialist

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Here is a counter argument to what caryking posted about the tenth amendment and why the President should use the Insurrection Act.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-trump-should-read-black-lives-matter-riot-act-insurrection-act

---

I love the Constitution and enjoy reading papers from the founders; however, I am not a constitutional scholar, so, I will need to read this article (BTW, I enjoy Glenn Beck) and try and discern why the heck being said...

caryking said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Here is a counter argument to what caryking posted about the tenth amendment and why the President should use the Insurrection Act.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-trump-should-read-black-lives-matter-riot-act-insurrection-act

---

I love the Constitution and enjoy reading papers from the founders; however, I am not a constitutional scholar, so, I will need to read this article (BTW, I enjoy Glenn Beck) and try and discern why the heck being said...

---

It's a good article and he backs it up with cases and facts. It's above my pay grade too, but under what Mr. Horowitz wrote, I believe the President is well within his right to invoke the act.

Edit to add: Beck was mentioning it the other day and he thought it was UnConstitutional for the President to use it without being asked, and that is when I started digging because I didn't think that was right. And GB knows the Constitution much better than I.

caryking said:

---

Really, no one wants to see military personnel walking the streets of cities. I think its just a bad thought to think about that, in general... So, the mayor's, in each city, has to give instruction to the Police to stop this mess.

I believe in a constitutional government. The following are the enumerated federal powers:

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

All, that's it above for the federal government! Nothing more! And please read the original intent of the words before trying to understand what you think they mean.

So, we can speak about all the issues around the country and what should be done; however, most of the ideas, thoughts, possibilities, etc... need to either come the local governments or the people. The federal government has "Zero" jurisdiction over these matters.

---

This is the 21st Century, not the 18th. That same unamended Constitution prevented women and slaves from voting, allowed slavery, and many forms of discrimination. The Founders did not intend the Constitution to be a static document but a framework for deciding issues in a changing world. One of the reasons that the Articles of Confederation failed was that it was too ridged regarding Federal powers - powers that the States would not or could not exercise. When people claim they are a Constitutionalist but refuse to recognize the role of the judiciary and the limitations of 18th Century technology they are really claiming they want to live in in something other than a Republic - a monarchy or dictatorship perhaps. .

If you have the time read the Federalist papers by Madison and Hamilton and particular the Anti-Federalist's written responses. Many of them have "professional" opinions that are their "stated" positions, but when they hold office, they tend to act as necessary to advance the interests of the nation. The check on this is the Congress, the Judiciary, and the Electoral College (now the voting public). In the final analysis, if the three branches are okay with it - it;s okay. That is what the founders generally intended.

In principle most everyone agree with limited government - until the **** hits the fan. After the mess is cleaned up they usually want the government to go away. Sometimes it does, many times it does not and the reason it does not is to prevent the **** from hitting the fan again.

lumberpack5 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Really, no one wants to see military personnel walking the streets of cities. I think its just a bad thought to think about that, in general... So, the mayor's, in each city, has to give instruction to the Police to stop this mess.

I believe in a constitutional government. The following are the enumerated federal powers:

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

All, that's it above for the federal government! Nothing more! And please read the original intent of the words before trying to understand what you think they mean.

So, we can speak about all the issues around the country and what should be done; however, most of the ideas, thoughts, possibilities, etc... need to either come the local governments or the people. The federal government has "Zero" jurisdiction over these matters.

---

This is the 21st Century, not the 18th. That same unamended Constitution prevented women and slaves from voting, allowed slavery, and many forms of discrimination. The Founders did not intend the Constitution to be a static document but a framework for deciding issues in a changing world. One of the reasons that the Articles of Confederation failed was that it was too ridged regarding Federal powers - powers that the States would not or could not exercise. When people claim they are a Constitutionalist but refuse to recognize the role of the judiciary and the limitations of 18th Century technology they are really claiming they want to live in in something other than a Republic - a monarchy or dictatorship perhaps. .

If you have the time read the Federalist papers by Madison and Hamilton and particular the Anti-Federalist's written responses. Many of them have "professional" opinions that are their "stated" positions, but when they hold office, they tend to act as necessary to advance the interests of the nation. The check on this is the Congress, the Judiciary, and the Electoral College (now the voting public). In the final analysis, if the three branches are okay with it - it;s okay. That is what the founders generally intended.

In principle most everyone agree with limited government - until the **** hits the fan. After the mess is cleaned up they usually want the government to go away. Sometimes it does, many times it does not and the reason it does not is to prevent the **** from hitting the fan again.

---

Where in the constitution does it say women can't vote? It was man, and it's power, via law, that prohibited women, black, etc... from voting!

I think what you should say is that the founders didn't mean for the constitution to be misinterpreted; however, they did provide for edits to the constitution through the amendment process. Additionally, the founders, even more so, certain States, didn't want the constitution... why? They didn't trust man! Man would make comments like: Yours Above! Man would think they have all the power, sound familiar? Man would enact laws that limit liberty, sound familiar?

Today's technology has no limitation from this 18th century document (you may say rag). Individual liberties is what the constitution recognizes and sets the framework to protect them. Nothing really more (other than the above)

BTW, I have read the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers. The anti-federalist papers; rather people of the states that were opposed to the constitution, in my opinion, had the most forethought. Without them, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation, would we? 1st amendment

I never think that the first solution, when **** hits the fan, is to get the federal government involved. It should always be: people -> local government -> county government -> state government-> federal government. Keep it close to the **** hitting the fan!

The murderer in Portland this weekend gave an interview to Vice(what ever that is) and there is a clip playing now where he admits he shot the guy but said it was in self defense. Total BS. I will connect to a twitter feed and you will have to scroll down some. Sorry I don't tweet and I don't have the means to connect right to the tweet. The tweet happened about three hours ago, so if somebody could put a link right to the tweet it would be appreciated.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec

Here is a link to a story and the video.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/03/michael-reinoehl-portland-antifa-jay-bishop-shooting/

Reports tonight that Michael Reinoehl the suspected murderer of the Portland Trump supporter was shot and killed by U. S. Marshalls tonight in Lacey Washington.

Pulled a gun on them.

I am sure that we will be told that the Marshalls should have just stood there and let themselves be shot.

The question is now, will they riot and burn cities over a white dude? Over one of their own mindless drone leftist rioters (and murderer).

How will leftist loons react?

SupplyChainPack said:

---

Pulled a gun on them.

I am sure that we will be told that the Marshalls should have just stood there and let themselves be shot.

---

Had a semi automatic rifle and unloaded about 40-50 shots on the U. S. Marshalls. Then they shot back and after shooting him performed CPR. Warning, some graphic video.

Good. That's what should happen. Instead of walking free and giving interviews he should've had police coming to take him in. You resist and you take your life into your own hands. Clearly a deranged individual.

All around a sad situation on so many levels. How on earth did we even get here to start with.....

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

SupplyChainPack said:

---

Pulled a gun on them.

I am sure that we will be told that the Marshalls should have just stood there and let themselves be shot.

---

Had a semi automatic rifle and unloaded about 40-50 shots on the U. S. Marshalls. Then they shot back and after shooting him performed CPR. Warning, some graphic video.

---

This is the absolute text book definition of, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

WPNfamily said:

---

This is the absolute text book definition of, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

---

That's great. And definitely getting used on my kids at the (too many) appropriate times.

ncsualum05 said:

---

Good. That's what should happen. Instead of walking free and giving interviews he should've had police coming to take him in. You resist and you take your life into your own hands. Clearly a deranged individual.

---

Clearly had mental health issues.

Reading stories last night he was verbally abusive to his dementia patient mom, had been estranged from his family for years due to his abusive and erratic behavior, etc.

Wish he could have gotten the help he clearly needed before he killed people and got killed himself.

Civilized said:

---

Wish he could have gotten the help he clearly needed before he killed people and got killed himself.

---

That's probably Trump's fault too.

TheStorm said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Wish he could have gotten the help he clearly needed before he killed people and got killed himself.

---

That's probably Trump's fault too.

---

No it's not Trump's fault.

It's not 'always about race.'

It's not 'always Trump's fault'.

When it is, it is, and when it's not it's not.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

Good. That's what should happen. Instead of walking free and giving interviews he should've had police coming to take him in. You resist and you take your life into your own hands. Clearly a deranged individual.

---

Clearly had mental health issues.

Reading stories last night he was verbally abusive to his dementia patient mom, had been estranged from his family for years due to his abusive and erratic behavior, etc.

Wish he could have gotten the help he clearly needed before he killed people and got killed himself.

---

Yikes. That's worse than I thought. Still I wish democrats wouldn't use some crazy rhetoric all the time encouraging people like this to go out and commit political violence. It's not a one time thing either. I mean 3 years ago you had a crazed gunman try to shoot as many GOP congressman on a baseball field as he could. You have consistent mobs on the streets harassing people if they are identified as Trump supporter... anything from being shouted at and threatened all the way to beaten almost to death or killed. It's actually dangerous to be a republican in a lot of areas of the country, and it should never be that way. Democrats don't denounce it, they pretend it doesn't exist, or that it's actually Trump voters in the streets. Pelosi says Republicans are an enemy of the people. Cuomo says Trump better bring an army if he comes to NYC to visit. They've promoted that Trump is a russian operative for 3 years. I mean is it any wonder what's happening?

---

Maxine Waters telling everybody to get "in the faces of members of Trump's Cabinet." Yep the left doesn't have anything to do with what is going on in this country. They haven't been divisive at all. If you believe that then I have some ocean front property for sale in Kansas.

---

Forgot about that peach. Yep.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

Good. That's what should happen. Instead of walking free and giving interviews he should've had police coming to take him in. You resist and you take your life into your own hands. Clearly a deranged individual.

---

Clearly had mental health issues.

Reading stories last night he was verbally abusive to his dementia patient mom, had been estranged from his family for years due to his abusive and erratic behavior, etc.

Wish he could have gotten the help he clearly needed before he killed people and got killed himself.

---

Yikes. That's worse than I thought. Still I wish democrats wouldn't use some crazy rhetoric all the time encouraging people like this to go out and commit political violence. It's not a one time thing either. I mean 3 years ago you had a crazed gunman try to shoot as many GOP congressman on a baseball field as he could. You have consistent mobs on the streets harassing people if they are identified as Trump supporter... anything from being shouted at and threatened all the way to beaten almost to death or killed. It's actually dangerous to be a republican in a lot of areas of the country, and it should never be that way. Democrats don't denounce it, they pretend it doesn't exist, or that it's actually Trump voters in the streets. Pelosi says Republicans are an enemy of the people. Cuomo says Trump better bring an army if he comes to NYC to visit. They've promoted that Trump is a russian operative for 3 years. I mean is it any wonder what's happening?

---

Maxine Waters telling everybody to get "in the faces of members of Trump's Cabinet." Yep the left doesn't have anything to do with what is going on in this country. They haven't been divisive at all. If you believe that then I have some ocean front property for sale in Kansas.

---

#resist!!!!

WPNfamily said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

SupplyChainPack said:

---

Pulled a gun on them.

I am sure that we will be told that the Marshalls should have just stood there and let themselves be shot.

---

Had a semi automatic rifle and unloaded about 40-50 shots on the U. S. Marshalls. Then they shot back and after shooting him performed CPR. Warning, some graphic video.

---

This is the absolute text book definition of, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

---

Kudos to the police. They did alot more CPR on him than I would have.

"Unloaded 40-50 shots on US Marshalls"?

Damn, dude was a terrible shot.