TexasCHLforum.com

Last Friday. Extended family on a fishing trip. Attacked by 2 illegals.

“Agent Vega was armed and fought back to protect his family. During the course of the ensuing firefight Agent Vega’s father was hit in the leg and Agent Vega was mortally wounded. After Agent Vega fell, his family members continued to fight back.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/08/murder- ... z39cDrNDPx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/05/su ... ous-times/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=765yFl3x8sc (punch line near the end)

Neither of the links you posted mentions what I read in the Brownsville Herald....that the father shot back at these animals and disabled their vehicle which they had to abandon after driving a few miles. It would be interesting to know if he picked up his son's gun or has a CHL.

Contains 850% of the RDA for irony.

Not illegal aliens, "refugees" just trying to come to America to better themselves and pursue the American dream.


Maybe the Constitution and Bill of Rights should only apply to American Citizens and those that are documented and legally here.

mojo84 wrote:Not illegal aliens, "refugees" just trying to come to America to better themselves and pursue the American dream.


Maybe the Constitution and Bill of Rights should only apply to American Citizens and those that are documented and legally here.

Bingo!

Any other is an invader.

Jim Beaux wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Not illegal aliens, "refugees" just trying to come to America to better themselves and pursue the American dream.


Maybe the Constitution and Bill of Rights should only apply to American Citizens and those that are documented and legally here.

Bingo!

Any other is an invader.

Except the Bill of Rights doesn't make that distinction....it refers to persons and people, not citizens. However, if we actually abided the Constitution our borders would be defended against this invasion and there wouldn't be a tax funded welfare system attracting the invaders.

VMI77 wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Not illegal aliens, "refugees" just trying to come to America to better themselves and pursue the American dream.


Maybe the Constitution and Bill of Rights should only apply to American Citizens and those that are documented and legally here.

Bingo!

Any other is an invader.

Except the Bill of Rights doesn't make that distinction....it refers to persons and people, not citizens. However, if we actually abided the Constitution our borders would be defended against this invasion and there wouldn't be a tax funded welfare system attracting the invaders.

Hence why I said, "maybe...should". Heck, there is a movement on for a Convention of States. Maybe that should be addressed as part of that.

VMI77 wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Not illegal aliens, "refugees" just trying to come to America to better themselves and pursue the American dream.


Maybe the Constitution and Bill of Rights should only apply to American Citizens and those that are documented and legally here.

Bingo!

Any other is an invader.

Except the Bill of Rights doesn't make that distinction....it refers to persons and people, not citizens. However, if we actually abided the Constitution our borders would be defended against this invasion and there wouldn't be a tax funded welfare system attracting the invaders.

This.

mojo84 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Not illegal aliens, "refugees" just trying to come to America to better themselves and pursue the American dream.


Maybe the Constitution and Bill of Rights should only apply to American Citizens and those that are documented and legally here.

Bingo!

Any other is an invader.

Except the Bill of Rights doesn't make that distinction....it refers to persons and people, not citizens. However, if we actually abided the Constitution our borders would be defended against this invasion and there wouldn't be a tax funded welfare system attracting the invaders.

Hence why I said, "maybe...should". Heck, there is a movement on for a Convention of States. Maybe that should be addressed as part of that.

I do think the anchor baby provision is no longer reasonable and needs to be amended.

VMI77 wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Not illegal aliens, "refugees" just trying to come to America to better themselves and pursue the American dream.


Maybe the Constitution and Bill of Rights should only apply to American Citizens and those that are documented and legally here.

Bingo!

Any other is an invader.

Except the Bill of Rights doesn't make that distinction....it refers to persons and people, not citizens. However, if we actually abided the Constitution our borders would be defended against this invasion and there wouldn't be a tax funded welfare system attracting the invaders.

I dont mean to come across as abrasive, but Im very frustrated with the obfuscation of this issue. There should be no exceptions, Mojo84's proposal pertained to whom the BORs should apply to.

Foreign invaders should be treated as foreign invaders. You break our laws, you should get no benefit from them either.

Respectfully

What ees thees "constitution" of which you speak?


There was a time when the solution to problems like this was as close as the nearest tree.
There is a reason God put all those cottonwoods along the river.

VMI77 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Not illegal aliens, "refugees" just trying to come to America to better themselves and pursue the American dream.


Maybe the Constitution and Bill of Rights should only apply to American Citizens and those that are documented and legally here.

Bingo!

Any other is an invader.

Except the Bill of Rights doesn't make that distinction....it refers to persons and people, not citizens. However, if we actually abided the Constitution our borders would be defended against this invasion and there wouldn't be a tax funded welfare system attracting the invaders.

Hence why I said, "maybe...should". Heck, there is a movement on for a Convention of States. Maybe that should be addressed as part of that.

I do think the anchor baby provision is no longer reasonable and needs to be amended.

There is no anchor baby provision in the Constitution. You're only supposed to get citizenship if you're born to US Citizens and/or born subject to the laws and jurisdictions of the USA. Children of ambassadors, for example, born in the US, do NOT get citizenship, but are regarded as citizens of their parents' country, as they were not born under the laws of the US, and are not subject to those laws. An illegal alien, while prosecutable for violations of US law, did not enter the US under the authority of US law, and once they leave the US, we really have no hold on them. They have no legal status; therefore, their children do not have to get citizenship.

It's a matter that's fixable by legislation. No convention needed, just a Congress with some guts.

JSThane wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Not illegal aliens, "refugees" just trying to come to America to better themselves and pursue the American dream.


Maybe the Constitution and Bill of Rights should only apply to American Citizens and those that are documented and legally here.

Bingo!

Any other is an invader.

Except the Bill of Rights doesn't make that distinction....it refers to persons and people, not citizens. However, if we actually abided the Constitution our borders would be defended against this invasion and there wouldn't be a tax funded welfare system attracting the invaders.

Hence why I said, "maybe...should". Heck, there is a movement on for a Convention of States. Maybe that should be addressed as part of that.

I do think the anchor baby provision is no longer reasonable and needs to be amended.

There is no anchor baby provision in the Constitution. You're only supposed to get citizenship if you're born to US Citizens and/or born subject to the laws and jurisdictions of the USA. Children of ambassadors, for example, born in the US, do NOT get citizenship, but are regarded as citizens of their parents' country, as they were not born under the laws of the US, and are not subject to those laws. An illegal alien, while prosecutable for violations of US law, did not enter the US under the authority of US law, and once they leave the US, we really have no hold on them. They have no legal status; therefore, their children do not have to get citizenship.

It's a matter that's fixable by legislation. No convention needed, just a Congress with some guts.

I would love to see that....but, I don't see it anytime soon. Not in any numbers that would matter anyway. Too many elected officials trolling for votes any way they can get them.

I know many disagree with me but I think term limits would go a long way to help. We need to minimize the career politicians that are willing to sell out for votes so they can keep their self enriching jobs. Two terms is plenty for anyone.

Let's not forget the loss of an American's life, who was also a first responder, and injury to his family. The reason it happened and what led to it is very bad...but the loss to his family is what matters. That is all we could maybe help with. Has someone started a fund for them?