Sad news concerning Paul Harrell.

It’s especially said that his own brother didn’t know his views and doesn’t know what will become of him.

Make sure to avoid that fate for yourself.

I will miss him. I would like to see him one day in heaven, but who knows?

This is a good set of tests and an interesting channel. I guess one takeaway might be to stick with SureFire and Streamlight (although I have never seen either company field lights that claimed 5000 lumens). I wonder who needs a 5000 lumen flashlight anyway.

Then this is also a good video, but frankly I can’t locate a Maglite 623 with these specifications. I’m guessing it’s a modified version.

Coupling with what I said yesterday, David sent me this commentary. I must have missed this when it came out. That’s my mistake.

The “enforce exiting gun laws” faction of gun owners are the loudest objectors, evidently unaware that their position is ideologically no different than a Revolutionary era colonial demanding to enforce exiting Intolerable Acts. The hard truths no one wants to admit are that “gun control” laws don’t work – whether they’re favored by Everytown or by NRA, and that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.

It’s not a matter of “Should felons have guns?” That’s the wrong question. Try “Should those proven violent and predatory have access to the rest of us?”

Ditto with “Should illegal aliens have guns?”

Of course, all human beings are entitled to unalienable rights. And the Supreme Court has acknowledged, in the Heller case, and earlier, in Cruikshank, “The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank… ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.’”

But again, it’s the wrong question. What should be asked is “Why is a known illegal alien allowed to remain in the United States instead of being deported?”

[ … ]

At this writing, more, including an inordinate number of military-aged males of not just Mexican or Central American origin, but from China, and from hostile Islamic states, are adding to their unvetted numbers already here while our government, consented to under the premise that it would “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” offers the lawbreakers incentives and rewards to embed themselves (and increase political power through apportionment) throughout the Republic.

It’s hardly unreasonable to conclude the “newcomers” (we aren’t supposed to call them “illegals” anymore) represent the equivalent of a standing foreign army, many with agendas directed by brutal criminal cartels and by bellicose powers like China, Russia, and Iran.

The Framers never intended to protect the right of invaders to keep and bear arms, but again, that’s the wrong issue. We need to instead ask ourselves “Who does it benefit to have Second Amendment advocates arguing over acceptable infringements while they ignore the damn elephant in the room?”

This issue all about avoiding confusion, thinking deeper than a sophomoric level of understanding, and focusing on the root questions. It’s easy to get distracted.

Do try not to get distracted. When you get distracted, it makes you look like a simpleton.

To understand if your view is perhaps a bit outlandish and should be unpersuasive – even to yourself – always use hyperbole. Ask yourself the hard questions to see just exactly how far this would go.

Pose questions to yourself such as “Should we open the borders to invading armies and in fact arm them so that we can claim that the FedGov isn’t infringing upon the RKBA?” “Should we invite in immigrants who would predominantly undermine our core rights, including the RKBA?” “Should we terraform the culture such that we couple a welfare state with illegal immigrants, effectively destroying the medical care system in the country?” [Ask me how I know that immigrants are destroying the medical system in the country – go ahead, ask me].

“The grant of citizenship is a transfer of political power.” Thinking through the implications of that might do everyone some good.

That’s the correct decision.

Notice I didn’t say that RKBA isn’t a God-given right, because it is. I agreed that illegals don’t have second amendment rights. It’s our contract, not theirs. They can go back to their own homeland and force the government to adopt a covenant and contract that recognizes God-given rights just like we did.

Everyone has problems. You have your problems, I have mine. The problems of the illegal alien are not my problems. I have enough of my own to deal with. I can’t solve everyone else’s problems for them. And neither can America.

I’m not interested in the libertarian answer to this. I’m not a libertarian. I’m a Christian.

Illegals don’t have a right to be here to begin with. The fact that they’re here doesn’t mean that they can take advantage of the covenant and contract we have with our country (such as it is, and for as long as it lasts).

The Holy Writ stipulates to be kind to the sojourner among you. Sojourners don’t lay down roots and steal from you and try to undermine your own covenant and contract. They pass through. Becoming part of the tribe means adopting the values and faith of the tribe.

Enough said. This is the right decision. Illegal aliens are not part of “the people.”

So if you work for the ATF, send me a note and tell me why you’re not in Aurora, Colorado? It’s not rhetorical. Let me know.

Does attacking and shooting law abiding, peaceable Americans at 0600 hours get your riz on, while tackling the issue of illegally armed Venezuelan gangs a bit too scary for you?

If you’re not there, then what good are you after all?

Sooner or later, the American public is going to have to deal with the concept of the militia and personal self protection rather than relying on politically motivated cops, whether local, state or FedGov, for protection.

Outdoor Life.

Of the seven tactical shotguns we tested in the roundup, none could approach the speed with which we were able to accurately shoot the Beretta 1301.

The folding stock from Chisel Machining is an elegant bit of kit. It has a lot of qualities that enhance the operation of the Beretta and, if for some reason you have a 1301 without this stock and feel like splurging, I highly recommend the upgrade.

This is a nice piece of kit, and it will fit any version of the Beretta 1301.

It’s not cheap, but if you want the folding stock to make the gun smaller and lighter, this bit of kit seems to be worth it.

Disclosure. I have been paid nothing for this. Go read the review at OL.

First, a truth.

For the first two decades of this century, the conventional wisdom of paid political strategists for both parties was George W. Bush’s svengali Karl Rove’s grand strategy that opening wide the borders was what Hispanic voters cared about most, that whichever party pandered hardest to Latinos on immigration would rule the Hispanic-dominated future. Sure, the Republicans would lose out on each additional Latino let in, but they’d make up for it in volume. Or something.

I was a rare voice of dissent. It seemed to me that the Hispanics who cared most about Open Borders were exactly the the handful of Latinos whom strategists and journalists talked to the most, such as Hispanic politicians and NGO ethnic activists. Of course, they benefit from swamping the country with more warm Latin American bodies whom they could claim to be the leaders of.

My emphasis over the last 24 years has been instead that Americans of Latin-American descent who vote aren’t monolithic Open Borders fanatics like their white-subsidized elites want them to be. Instead, Hispanic voters tend to favor traditional Democratic Harry Hopkins-style policies of tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect for basic class reasons.

The Democrats appear to have finally figured out that Rove was wrong and I was right.

Karl Rove was always a putz, and GWB was always a putz for listening to him. He’s a shyster – a fraud – a carnival barker.

Now, if it’s not enough that Hispanics want to tax the country into oblivion, they are indeed a monolith (or very nearly so) concerning the RKBA.

Gun violence is a top voting issue for Latinos and Latinas this election cycle.

In fact, Latines across the country have widely supported gun safety initiatives for several election cycles now — likely because the community is disproportionately impacted by the dangers of guns. The Center for American Progress found that Hispanics are twice as likely to die from gun violence than their white counterparts. The U.S. Surgeon General also declared gun violence a public health crisis for the first time ever this year.

“Latino voters believe that guns are too easy to access and they want elected officials to put an end to school shootings and expand community safety and mental health programs,”  Clarissa Martinez De Castro, Vice President of the Latino Vote Initiative at UnidosUS, told Latino USA. “This really raises the need for candidates and parties to pay greater attention to this issue.”

They are importing people who do not believe in your RKBA. They know it. That’s one reason they’re importing these people.

I told you so. Consider yourself warned again.

Hispanics and Latinos Favor Gun Control

Hispanics Have Again Said They Favor Strict Gun Control