FBI arrests leader of U.S. 'patriots' stopping migrants at border

Preferably in Republican neighborhoods. If they can put up with the stench of the Washington swamp they voted in, this shouldn't be a problem for them. Besides, god-fearing Republicans are always willing to hire illegals at sub-minimum wage/no benefit jobs.

 

Well, you could have misdemeanors that were punishable by big fines and jail time. But it would not take away your right to vote or own a gun. I think here in my state, you get 3 misdemeanors and you get charged with a felony on the last one, for being a habitual criminal.

 

That's the way California use tobe, three strikes and you're out.

It seems that criminals have become a protected group in California.

 

Send them all to California !
They love illegals.

 

The boys will in the south side of Chicago are not going to Gun Shows !

 

Just the Democrats love illegals.

 

They love them as long as they are not in their back yard. Move a tent city into Pelosi’s neighborhood & I guarantee you, they will either be charged with trespassing or moved to a new location far away from Nancy’s neighborhood.

A under cover right wing journalist should go undercover & setup a tent in front of Nancy’s house just to see what happens.

 

A patriot doesn't detain people at gunpoint because he doesn't like the way they look, even if he belongs to a make believe whacadoodle militia of people who can't get hired by Homeland Sec.

 

Sure they do..... did you ever hear of Aaron Hernandez?

 

According to the findings of the ATF, such is not the case. In the state of California, for example, more firearms found in the possession of prohibited individuals, were originally sold within the state of California than in any other state where firearms were traced to. This is despite the myriad of firearm-related restrictions in place in the state of California, including background checks on all private transactions, permits to purchase, permits to own, firearms registration, and countless other requirements.

 

thumbs up

 

One Mind's post and arguments since have collapsed, so I claim victory.

 

Allowing the ATF to actually conduct studies would be a good start to actually identifying the problem. Unfortunately, Republicans and the NRA don't want that data publicly available.

"Passed in 1997 with the strong backing of the NRA, the so-called "Dickey Amendment" effectively bars the national Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from studying firearm violence -- an epidemic the American Medical Association has since dubbed "a public health crisis."
The amendment, which was first tucked into an appropriations bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, stipulates that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." A similar provision was included in the Appropriations Act of 2012.
Named for Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas, a self-proclaimed "point man for the NRA" on The Hill -- the Dickey amendment does not explicitly ban CDC research on gun violence. But along with the gun control line came a $2.6 million budget cut -- the exact amount that the agency had spent on firearm research the year prior -- and a quiet wariness."

 

In 2017 the Ds had no power to stop much of anything?
Why did the R's wait until they lost 1 part of gov't to put forward a plan? I'll tell you why, they really don't want to implement that plan.
And if the courts block some of their plan, then they need to stay within constitutional guidelines. Why don't they? I'll tell you why, they really don't want to implement that plan.

All talk, NO action, but it keeps people screaming and pointing fingers. Something each party is top notch at doing.
You don't fall for the all talk and no action, do you?

 

If you're a Conservative, it doesn't even take that much for the left to think you deserve being shot.

 

https://pluralist.com/justin-roilan...44Tx0Umqx4tTvZJvC36PsSCgKvhUmbzVMnSLCaZlV7_j4


^ Exhibit "A"

 

I bet if illegals voted Republican, you would be gung-ho about getting that border shut down immediately.

 

I think a reporter should break into her house (like they do at our border) and when caught, claim asylum (like they do at our border) and then take her money (like they do after they claim asylum) and make her pay every expense they can't afford (like they do if they don't have money) to see just how much she really supports it.

 

Good God man.

 

He's not even Conservative, dude is fairly liberal.

And they're calling him a NAZI (whom they think should be assaulted in public) because he has the audacity to not consider dangerous persons who refuse to categorize people by race only and to admit that both sides have reprehensible extremists

 

The caravan emptying central america didn't start till 2018. Nice try.

 

It is understood by yourself, that the ATF and CDC are not even remotely close to being the same thing, correct?

Beyond that matter, there is nothing to actually study in this particular matter. There is demand for firearms by those who should not have them, and there are those who are willing to meet the demand if the financial compensation is significant enough. It is quite literally as simple as that. Remove those who are providing the demand, and the supply will dry up.

Advocate or promote. Exactly what part of that is proving difficult to comprehend? Where exactly is the disconnect that prevents the understanding of the fact that advocacy and study are not the same thing?

The CDC is free to research the matter to whatever extent it may wish. But it cannot claim that specific firearm-related restrictions would serve to prevent certain crimes from being committed. It is not paid to advocate for political change, it is paid to study matters pertaining to health. If it cannot do that, if it cannot present its findings in a wholly neutral manner, then it should be stripped of federal funding.

 

It ain't like the gun shortage is holding anyone back. The fewer likely victims of crime the better. Welcome aboard.

 

Building a wall doesn't even address half the problem.

You appear to have missed the bipartisan immigration reform bill of 2013 - created by members of both parties, including Republicans such as Rubio.

That bill included tightening visas (how about half come and then stay, so just as important as a wall), about $40B for the southern border, fixing e-verify and requiring its use, etc.

That bill passed the Democratic Senate and would have passed the Republican House had Boehner not blocked the bill.

Claims that Dems don't want to do anything is just plain ignorance.

What we're seeing from Trump is failure to construct a workable plan.

He wants the political issue, NOT a solution.

 

So there was not immigrants trying to cross illegally before then?
And those caravan CA are crossing and turning themselves in.

And the non answer, is that a yes that you fall for it? To the all talk no action of the party(s).