David Codrea:

Environmental devastation caused by illegal alien crossings has been well-documented, and there is nothing to suggest that won’t increase. After all, if the government was serious about stopping it, or even slowing it down, it could have done so by now.

But following that, what is the additional burden on the environment when tens of millions of “surprise” arrivals add their wants and needs to the infrastructure in cities and communities throughout the land, from energy production and consumption, to water purification, use, and drainage, to waste disposal and more? How much more traffic and transportation activity, with resultant pollutants will be generated? How much more greenhouse gas will be generated? How much larger will the national carbon footprint get?

Will the impact be greater than, say, the occasional citizen firing a gun in self-defense in a national park that encompasses thousands of square miles, millions of acres…?

Those who would impose this on the rest of us permanently have no answers and aren’t interested in finding them, providing one more proof that all the climate noise they’re making is yet another deception to mask and advance a different agenda.

And don’t you doubt for a moment that there is an overarching agenda behind the influx of immigrants into the American system and culture.  But back to the issue of the environmental impacts of immigration for a moment.  There is also the impact of dead bodies laying in the wilderness and the public health crisis on the horizon.  The progressives failed to mention the environment because they are hypocrites.  Or perhaps another way of saying it is that one cardinal tenet of the progressive faith, i.e., impoverishing the middle class and removal of rights to own and bear arms, clashed with another cardinal tenet of the faith, i.e., the environment.  As the saying goes, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.  Saul Alinsky would be smiling from his grave if his soul wasn’t in hell.

Kurt Hofmann:

Might training in which the officer is taught to first fall prostrate to the ground be a more-efficient training exercise? Would falling prone result in fewer accidental killings? Falling to the ground would provide less of a target area, might confuse the offender and would give the officer additional time to evaluate the situation while at the same time studying his shot if needed.

So the advice is to fall down and evaluate rather than conduct defensive maneuvers?  That may be the worst tactical advice I’ve ever heard.  But I agree with #4.

Obama threw a tantrum over the lack of gun control in Congress.  Because you know, they are such meanie pants poo-heads there.

A good modification of South Carolina gun laws for a change?  Notice the “only ones” mentality in SLED, though.