Mirror:

This chilling mysterious video shows a group of ‘researchers’ at the CERN Large Hadron Collider staging a chilling ‘satanic human sacrifice’ ritual.

The footage shows a group of cloaked men gathering in a courtyard around a statue at the facility in Geneva, Switzerland.

But CERN has declared that the video is fake, and claims that the ritual was simply researchers and scientists coming to work at the facility ‘taking their sense of humour too far.’

The facility is home to the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator, known as the Large Hadron Collider.

Its aim is to allow physicists to test the predictions of different theories of particle physics.

In the clip, there appears to be at least eight figures standing in the shadows, before one man moves into the centre of the group.

Moments later, a woman wearing a white dress enters and kneels on the stone floor.

The woman the seems to lie down on the ground before a man in a cloak approaches her with his hands raised above his head.

Viewers of the footage speculate the man is holding a knife which he appears to plunge into the woman’s chest before the clip suddenly cuts off.

Good Lord!  I’ll let the readers fill in the comments on what they think about this, but I don’t want to hear another damn word about how scientists only refer to naturalistic schema and thus reject supernatural explanations for things.

David Kopel:

You might think that a government unit called the “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers” would mainly perform projects such as building military forts and similar facilities. Yet the Corps of Engineers has acquired jurisdiction over many things that have nothing to do with the military. In particular, “The Corps of Engineers is the nation’s largest provider of water-based outdoor recreation. It administers 422 lake and river projects in 43 states, spanning 12 million acres, encompassing 55,000 miles of shoreline and 4,500 miles of trails, and including 90,000 campsites and 3,400 boat launch ramps. Waters under its control constitute 33 percent of all U.S. freshwater fishing.” (Here is a list of the Corps’ 1,969 recreational facilities.) Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Mountain States Legal Foundation, the Corps has announced that it is reconsidering the gun ban on its outdoor property.

The Corps allows hunting on some of its land. Except for hunting, possession of a functional firearm is prohibited on Corps land — even a handgun inside one’s own tent. In Nesbitt v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Mountain States Legal Foundation (a public-interest law firm based in Denver) filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Idaho residents, regarding Corps recreational land in Idaho. In 2014, Federal District Judge B. Lynn Winmill (appointed in 1995 by President Bill Clinton) ruled that the ban violates the Second Amendment. The Obama administration then appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The prohibition was adopted in 1973, during the Richard Nixon administration. Nixon – -the only U.S. president ever to resign in order to avoid certain removal from office by the House and Senate — thought “guns are an abomination.” His administration promulgated a variety of anti-gun regulations.

[ … ]

Note that by banning ammunition, the regulation also forbids the possession of unloaded firearms that could be loaded in an emergency (if sufficient time were available).

Winmill held that “this complete ban goes beyond merely burdening Second Amendment rights but ‘destroys’ those rights for law-abiding citizens carrying operable firearms for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” Accordingly, the ban was unconstitutional. The opinion recognized the Corps’ authority to regulate guns on its outdoor property, but not to forbid them altogether.

A similar case in Georgia, involving a different attorney and plaintiffs, was remanded by the 11th Circuit. GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 788 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015). The 11th Circuit held that the total ban was not a destruction of Second Amendment rights, since visitors spend only part of any given year on Corps property.

[ … ]

As the Corps follows through on its reconsideration, it has a very useful model available. In 2009, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed (as an amendment to bill involving credit card laws) legislation allowing the lawful carrying of firearms on lands in the National Park Service. This was later extended to include the National Wildlife Refuge System. 54 U.S.C. § 104906; 36 C.F.R. § 2.4. In short, a person can carry a firearm on such property if the person can legally own a firearm and if the carrying is compliant with the law of the host state. Some states require a permit to carry a firearm; some require a permit for concealed carry but not for open carry; and others do not require a permit for either mode.

Although some people predicted disaster when the National Parks law was enacted, its operation in the past eight years has been uneventful. It is reasonable to presume the same for a similar regulation for Corps of Engineers recreational property.

A number of comments are in order.  First of all, it’s inappropriate in the superlative for the Army Corps of Engineers to have control of land and waterways like they do.  This is a misuse of tax monies and of the Army as well.  If the Army did engineering well, SL-1 wouldn’t have had a control rod ejection accident and they would be the reactor operators rather than the Navy, or at least in addition to the Navy.  Perhaps they are doing an outstanding job with dam engineering, I wouldn’t know, except for the fact that they’re not.  But they certainly don’t do sporting and recreation well.  Good Lord.  I can think of a million uses for the Army, and control of sports and recreation isn’t one of them.

Second, it’s inappropriate in the superlative for the Army to have restricted guns on property like this.  The horrible Richard Nixon notwithstanding, the Army could have reversed this without a court fight.  Instead, they had to look and act like progressive social justice warriors in court rather than the robust, constitution-loving group they are supposed to be.

Third, I cannot think of a more ridiculous argument than the 11th Circuit’s ruling that prohibition of guns sometimes doesn’t infringe the second amendment because that’s not the same thing as a prohibition all the time.  It’s okay, under this schema, to make it impossible to defend yourself if you’re at location “x” because sometimes you’re at location “y.”  The phrase “shall not be infringed” means nothing anymore and the English language is Swahili while the sky is the earth.  Contradiction and beclownment is our friend.

Fourth, consider a second the Army’s argument, and as you do, it should be insulting to you.  Returning to the article, it says “The Corps pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision District of Columbia v. Heller allows gun bans in “sensitive places” such as “schools and government buildings.” Winmill explained that the “sensitive places” principle might justify a gun ban for Corps buildings, but not for “outdoor parks.” As for the Corps’ concerns that many of its recreational visitors are drunks who sometimes assault park officers, the court held that this cannot justify prohibiting everyone from exercising a constitutional right. The district court issued an injunction against gun prohibition on Corps property in Idaho. That injunction is still in effect.”

Drunkards, you are.  Many of you, if you frequent Army Corps of Engineers Land.  Many of you.  Just troublemakers and drunkards, and potential murderers.  And yet the fact that it’s precisely the innocent and peaceable man who may be assaulted by drunkards who needs that protection that is overlooked and unaddressed.

At one time I conducted my own research of homicides in National Parks before and after guns were again legalized in 2010, and the parks were no less safe in 2011 than they were in 2010.  Kopel is right about this, and perhaps soon I’ll submit another FOIA request for updated information.  As always with constitutional and open carry, mothers and children don’t run screaming and blood doesn’t run in the streets.  These are all just hysterical reactions.

This whole episode should be embarrassing to the Army, and it shouldn’t just mediate this case until a satisfactory conclusion is reached.  It should forthwith reverse the regulation and recognize the very constitution it should be defending.  David Kopel is a truly nice guy.  I’ve exchanged email with him before.  He thanked the Army Corps of Engineers.  I’ll reserve my thanks, thank you very much.  This has redounded to a lot of wasted taxpayer money and nanny state collectivism by the Army.  The Army should be ashamed it ever got this far.

NYT:

The White House offered an explanation on Sunday for a mysterious phone call that President Trump placed to Preet Bharara a day before abruptly dismissing him and 45 other United States attorneys, saying the president was merely trying to extend his good wishes.

But Mr. Bharara indicated on Sunday evening in a statement to The New York Times that he was skeptical of the White House account, although he did not offer an alternative explanation for the president’s call.

The call, placed on Thursday to the office of Mr. Bharara, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, by a personal assistant to the president, concerned Mr. Bharara because it seemed to be at odds with ethics protocols restricting communications between the White House and prosecutors. Mr. Bharara declined to return the call. But the White House said there was nothing untoward about it.

“The president reached out to Preet Bharara on Thursday to thank him for his service and to wish him good luck,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a White House spokeswoman, said in an email.

Count your blessings.  I would have reached out to you to tell you to kiss my ass.  Let’s stop with the adolescent bitching now, okay?

If you had gone after HRC, Bill, Anthony Weiner, DynCorp and the other bad actors associated with pedogate and nation toppling in North Africa, as well as anyone associated with The Clinton Foundation and The Clinton Global Initiative for money laundering and extortion, then I would have kept you around and paid you well.

But you didn’t.  You’re a coward, and under your watch you can always remember that the real criminals got away because you were to scared to do your job and honor your oath.

Be gone.  I hope I never hear about you again unless it’s to put you in handcuffs yourself for corruption.  Mr. Morally outraged, indeed.  What a damn hypocrite.

The State:

Proponents of gun reform and House Democrats were rattled Thursday when they learned a bill that would allow South Carolinians to carry a concealed firearm without a permit advanced without debate or public input.

The proposed law, by Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, was met with no opposition during a hearing by the Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee.

It calls for what is often referred to as “constitutional carry,” which allows those who can legally own a firearm to carry it – concealed or in the open – without a government-issued permit.

“The right to carry is a constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights,” Pitts said. “It is a constitutionally protected right, and that’s why I don’t think the government should (issue a) permit” for the carrying of a gun.

Pitts introduced a similar bill in 2016. But this year’s bill also would allow for “open carry,” which means a person can carry a firearm without having to conceal it.

The proposal does not change where firearm owners can carry their weapons. They would still be barred from carrying into schools and other already prohibited locations. And private businesses could still bar firearms from their establishments.

Carrying of a firearm while committing a crime also would remain prohibited.

The bill also would keep the state’s concealed weapons permitting system in place for those who would prefer that or need to have a permit when traveling out of state with a firearm, Pitts said.

No one from the public signed up to speak during Thursday’s hearing, which lasted about five minutes. The bill, which was filed Tuesday, passed with the support of the three Republicans serving on the panel. Reps. James Smith, D-Richland, and Mandy Powers Norrell, D-Lancaster, were absent.

Smith said he was out of town, while Powers Norrell said she was out of the country when both were reached by phone. Smith said if either had been present, they would have attempted to delay a vote, giving more time for word to spread to the public.

“The meeting was set Wednesday for Thursday morning,” Smith said. “It’s clearly being fast-tracked, which has undermined the ability for adequate public input because nobody had the time to react.”

The panel’s advancement of the bill without testimony from constituents or without all of the committee members present frustrated Sylvie Dessau, a local volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, an organization that calls for “common-sense legislation” to address gun violence.

“Simply put, this is not how our democracy works,” Dessau said. “We urge House leadership to reject this stunt to advance legislation pushed by gun lobby extremists. South Carolinians deserve to have a say in legislation that may impact our lives for years to come.”

But Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester – who is also the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that will debate the proposal next – stressed the bill’s timing was related to the Legislature’s shorter session this year.

[ … ]

Delleney said he thinks the bill will be well-received by members of the House. The House has previously passed legislation that allows for constitutional carry. But the bills have died in the Senate, with its rules that allow deliberation and easier blocking of legislation.

The State just had to consult moms against something or other.  God forbid they write a piece on proposed gun legislation without talking to folks funded by Michael Bloomberg.  You can almost sense the panic in the article.

Good on the S.C. House.  We’re watching.  Let’s push this thing through and get it done.  Quickly.  Use whatever rules you have to in order to minimize debate.  One delaying tactic is to let bills like this rot on the vine by debating them forever, and then close the legislative session without taking action because, well, there’s just not enough time left to finish the job.  You can finish this job and you know it.  It’s also especially good that this bill includes open carry.  For us, this is like Christmas.  It’s most of what we want wrapped up in one present.

Larry Martin was thrown out of the S.C. Senate for delaying this action in the past, forcing it to dry up in the judicial committee.  We watched.  We took action.  We’re watching you too, Senators.  We’re watching all of you, and we will seek retribution on a name by name basis.  Every one who delays or votes against this will be a target in the next primary or election.  Do this thing.  Get it done.

Don’t listen to LEOs who stand to lose money if you pass this bill.  Very few LEOs ever want this sort of thing because it interferes with their revenue stream for buying the newest and latest Dodge Chargers and all of that new, fancy Comms gear and automatic weapons for the SWAT teams for throwing grenades and busting in doors.  Listen to your voting constituency.  That’s us.

We’re American gun owners, and we don’t compromise or forget.

This one is a real zinger, folks.

A proposed bill in the Arkansas State Legislature with the potential to allow the concealed and open carry of a handgun without a permit is a more divisive issue for gun owners than most might think. The bill is scheduled for discussion during the senate judiciary committee on Tuesday, March 7.

El Dorado native and freshman State Senator Trent Garner (R-27th District) spearheaded Senate Bill 444 supporting what people know as constitutional carry, a movement sweeping the nation for non-permit open and concealed carry of a handgun as suggested by the second amendment: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In addition to the discrepancy mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, proponents of non-permit carry argued that there are too many confusing laws and registration paperwork for gun-carrying citizens, and if criminals and reckless people are already in possession of a handgun in public, then law-abiding citizens should be able to as well, Garner said.

Some argue that Arkansas is already somewhat of a constitutional carry state.

In 2015, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge interpreted Act 746, passed in 2013, to allow people in Arkansas to openly carry a handgun with a few caveats: law officers can ask the user’s intent of the weapon, carrying a weapon is not allowed in restricted areas — government building, public university, etc., private property owners have authority over whether people can openly carry a weapon and the law doesn’t affect concealed carry statutes.

Arkansas isn’t the only state considering the move for constitutional carry. Other similar bills are being considered in 14 other states including: Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, to name a few.

As of late, Garner’s proposal is empty, but the idea of what it could lead to has been polarizing for gun-owning citizens of El Dorado spanning from law-enforcement and gun shop employees to average gun-owners and the rest of the state. But, each stance agreed that a knowledge of gun safety and the state law is required for every gun-owner, even if it’s not mandatory.

“I have a real problem with people carrying guns without proper training,” said Larry Combs, local gun instructor and former mayor of El Dorado. “There’s enough gun accidents already.”

Combs teaches classes for people interested in obtaining a concealed carry license, and has seen some local gun-owners who have carried a handgun without a license or permit.

“This is the state of Arkansas, I’ve seen people who carry a gun concealed and say ‘I don’t need a permit, I’ve handled a gun my whole life’ and they can — unless they get stopped by the police, then they’re in trouble,” Combs said.

Danny Farley, lead court security officer for the El Dorado Federal Court building, is also a concealed carry instructor and does not favor non-permit concealed or open carry.

“It’s a bad idea,” Farley said. “The major problem is people need to know when it’s not okay to carry a weapon. I have no problem with people carrying a weapon, but they need to be educated, which a license guarantees.”

For concealed-carry certification in the state of Arkansas a person is required to take a 5-hour class where the instructor must stress liability and safety, show how to load and discharge a gun, read the state and federal gun laws in a coherent manner, and make sure the person is competent in handling a gun through a “live-fire” test.

Once training is completed, a questionnaire covering a person’s mental health, drug, alcohol, and criminal history is filled and submitted to the Arkansas State Police, at which point officials can grant or repeal a person from obtaining a license to carry a concealed handgun.

Open carry has no strings attached.

“To me, I don’t like open carry because there’s no regulations or class required,” said Ricky Roberts, Union County Sheriff. “With concealed carry, dispatch can run your name through the system and know whether you have a license to be carrying a weapon or not.”

Also, law enforcement officers are restricted to a certain extent when confronting people who openly carry a handgun, for instance: the officer can ask for that person’s intent and if the officer believes it’s for self-defense and hasn’t seen any suspicious activity, the officers move on. This can be a slippery slope, Farley said.

“If you carry openly, an officer has the right to ask if it’s for self defense use, and once that’s done he walks away, that’s all that police can do,” he said.

A large concern for gun-owners is that laws aren’t strict enough on criminals or mentally-ill persons, and until those laws are enforced law-abiding citizens should have easier access to owning a gun for self-defense, said Linda Newbury, mayor of Felsenthal.

So gun owners are split, or something like that, on the question of constitutional carry in Arkansas, but in order to prove the pretext of the article, the author cites Larry Combs, local gun instructor and former mayor of El Dorado, Danny Farley, lead court security officer for the El Dorado Federal Court building, who is also a concealed carry instructor, and Ricky Roberts, Union County Sheriff.  Two of them stand to lose the class fees for permitting if constitutional carry passes, and one of them is a LEO, and LEOs almost always hate constitutional carry.  Just because.  Shut up.  They’re in charge.

Of course, they are all huge supporters of the second amendment, but there’s that little nit early in the article on the “discrepancy mentioned in the U.S. Constitution,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.  Discrepancy.  It must be that the founders didn’t really mean what they wrote, or something.  But remember, folks who want a government permitting fee are always “big supporters of the second amendment.”

As for open carry, can you imagine a sillier Kabuki dance than a LEO stopping to ask why a person is openly carrying a gun?  “Why no officer, it isn’t for self defense, it’s for shooting up the local elementary school.”  How absolutely ridiculous.  As if the person couldn’t also carry concealed if he intended nefarious things with his weapon.

And don’t even mention that Arkansas crime hasn’t skyrocketed with blood running in the streets since the Arkansas AG interpretation that the law allows open carry with caveats.  It’s the caveats that are absurd, along with the notion that being able to surmise that a person openly carrying has a permit.  Oh, that’s right, the progressives want LEOs to be able to stop and identify you if you’re openly carrying and ask for proof of permitting, a schema that doesn’t acquiesce to the notion that all stops have to be so-called “Terry Stops” in order to be constitutional.

Oh dear, people just cannot learn to keep from looking like imbeciles when they speak of these things.  They really should look to the other open carry states, where things work just fine, LEOs aren’t running scared of open carriers, blood isn’t running in the streets, and where constitutional carry (in the states that honor it) hasn’t caused wild west shootouts because people don’t know the law.

Just take a deep breath, people.  Look around you.  Think.  Ponder in the quiet for a period of time.  Learn from history.  Quit being hysterical.  And make sure to reject lawmaking for the purpose of permitting and class fees and coffers of those who benefit from that revenue.  There is a fairer way to raise revenue than penalizing gun owners.

Perhaps some reader in Arkansas can give us an update on the state of things in your beloved state.

It’s called Vault 7, concerning the CIA hacking tools.  If you haven’t taken the time to read through it, you should.  I’m going to link, paste some of the content, and comment on an article at NRO today concerning this release, but before I do, you really need this reddit discussion thread as an antidote to the jingoistic silliness in the article.  There are other articles out there, but they pale in comparison to the stupidity of this one at NRO.

According to press reports, WikiLeaks today released thousands of highly classified CIA documents on methods the CIA allegedly is using to conduct cyber warfare. If these documents are legitimate, this illegal release will ruin cyber programs worth billions of dollars that the CIA was using to do battle with America’s enemies, especially terrorist groups.

The CIA officer who took the law into his or her hands to release this material justified this release by claiming this data “urgently need to be debated in public, including whether the CIA’s hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency.” The source also said he or she “wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.”

What nonsense. If the traitor truly believed this program violated U.S. law or endangered the privacy rights of America, there are numerous legal avenues he or she could have used, including the CIA inspector general and the House and Senate intelligence committees. CIA officers take an oath to protect classified national-security information. Such a massive illegal disclosure in violation of the CIA secrecy oath is not an act of courage or whistleblowing, it was “a Snowden” — an act of cowardice by a disgruntled individual who never should have been hired by the CIA.

The only nonsense is in this article.  I’ve copied and pasted enough now.  If you read any more, you’re head is liable to explode due to the overpressure from flow of stupidity.

So let’s rehearse what we do know, not what we can posture and preen about.  First of all, Edward Snowden told us about illegal surveillance being conducted on Americans.  Let’s note that again.  What the NSA was doing when Snowden made his revelations was illegal, and they’re still doing it.  There is absolutely no statutory basis for what they’re doing.

Next, Edward Snowden would be charged with crimes if he were to return to the U.S.  If he had taken this information to the Senate or House, it would have been pushed off to a committee, hidden, and nothing done about it, right after Snowden was arrested.  We know that for a fact because to this date, nothing whatsoever has been done about Snowden’s revelations.  The Senate and House are all compromised in “Brownstone operations” (and we’ll rehearse that in a moment).

What Wikileaks revealed today was that not only is the NSA doing it, but the CIA is doing it as well, and not only that, they’re possibly doing it better.  And no, this isn’t restricted to overseas targets or terrorists, it’s being used on literally anyone and everyone they want to target.  We also know that there is absolutely no statutory basis or justification for what the CIA is doing.  None.

Next, consider what the CIA is doing.  They are quite literally buying the vulnerabilities in U.S.-made software.  They are paying money to keep the vulnerabilities in software and hardware in order to exploit those weaknesses.  One more time so you get the point.  They are creating and buying zero-day exploits for systems and of course refraining from telling the manufacturers of those devices.  This is irresponsible and dangerous to the point of being criminal.  It isn’t negligent, it’s intentionally criminal.

This lends itself to fraud, abuse, extortion, potential convictions in a courtroom with the use of illegally obtained material, material that violates the Fourth Amendment to the constitution.  Here is something else.  Since some of the malware is stolen from Russia, no one can ever, ever again trust the CIA when they say something like “this malware or hacking attack has a known Russian [or any other country for that matter] signature.”  Never.  Not that I ever trusted the CIA anyway.

We would all love to live in a country in which we know with certainty that the men and women in responsible charge of the nation’s international security target only the known enemies of state, i.e., foreign enemies.  But that’s not reality, and only a fool or simpleton believes things like that.  We know that this lust for knowledge, this consuming drive for power, is emblematic of the fall in Genesis, where they wanted to be like God.  Statism is a wicked religion, and jingoism is its bread and butter.

So why would this writer, who wrote the same thing at Center For Security Policy, weigh in with such an article as this?  Why would he beclown himself in this way?  I can think of only two reasons.  The first is that he really doesn’t understand the nature of the deep state.

No, I’m not talking about the deep state in the way Bill Kristol talks about the deep state, with utter ignorance of the subject.  I mean the true nature of the deep state.  CIA, DynCorp (former SpecOps who handles the military operations of the CIA), the State Department, The Clinton Foundation, The Clinton Global Initiative, some FBI (e.g., Andrew McCabe and others), some generals (e.g., Petraeus), and other actors in the corporate world, have participated in nation-toppling in North Africa and the Middle East for the last ten or more years, going after oil, money, precious metals, weapons, human organs and human trafficking (read here child trafficking).

Their bread and butter for extortion is “Brownstone operations,” and their military bread and butter in North Africa has been coupling with the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow countries and destabilize entire regions.  Of course, money from George Soros came in quite handy.  If this writer doesn’t know about George Webb on YouTube (who is being assisted by FBI by his own admission), the Reddit discussion threads, the Voat discussion threads, and if this writer doesn’t know about “FBIAnon” and “DHS Insider” who is assisting some of these citizen investigations, then the writer is incompetent and should be fired.

If he worked for the CIA all these years and yet doesn’t know about the current war within the IC, then he is a buffoon.  On the other hand, if he does know about all of this, and if he does understand that both the NSA and CIA are engaging in illegal surveillance against American citizens, and yet he supports these programs anyway, then he is a traitor.  The second possibility is darker than the first.

Either way, the MSM is chock full of articles and commentaries today on this subject, and amusingly none of the articles display any significant degree of indignation.  When Nixon’s men broke into Watergate, the whole nation was outraged (except for Lynyrd Skynyrd).  Today, everyone is being recorded, every text message is being sent to storage from one of a few main internet nodes, every phone call is being recorded, and every penny made is being cataloged by the U.S. government.  And no one is batting an eyelid.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of affairs, a state that would have sickened our founders and caused rebellion at one tenth of what we’ve witnessed.  Our founding fathers would have already burned Washington, D.C. to the ground.  The war of independence was started over taxes and gun control.  The saddest part is that nothing is likely to happen as a result of the revelations today.  This too will pass, I predict, just like Snowden’s revelations.

John Jay has related thoughts.  WRSA also links a good video.

Via WRSA, here are two videos well worth your time.  While watching, I’m reminded of how much I miss hearing my old friend Mike Vanderboegh.  I do miss him.

I’m also reminded of how glad I am to have David Codrea as a friend who is still alive and working on the same side as me, and I’m thankful for newfound friends like Matt Bracken, all of whom appear in these videos.

Matt says something interesting.  He remarks, “Why should this generation care about freedom – they’ve never been taught it in school.”  Right.  By education and training, I’m an engineer.  Those courses necessary to teach me the basic tools to be an engineer I learned in college.  But I learned to be an engineer by working as an engineer.

As for the liberal arts, logic, theology, reading comprehension and the other things necessary for life, I learned nothing of value in college.  Nothing.  College was worthless, as was all of the schooling which preceded it.  I first learned to think critically when I matriculated in seminary, taking the awfully difficult tests, and reading thousands upon thousands of pages of literature.  Hard, difficult literature, not the crap in college.  Assuming they aren’t taught it by us, this generation will never understand until it’s too late.  By taught it, I mean about those doctrines of liberty.

Hartford Courant:

If a police officer stops and asks a person to show their pistol permit, most gun owners comply.

But that is not the law in Connecticut, where police must have suspicion of a crime in order to force the gun owner to display the permit. If the gun owner refuses, police say there is nothing they can do.

That’s why more than 35 police chiefs joined key legislators Tuesday in Hartford to call for changing the law.

The issue has prompted controversy in West Haven and Bridgeport, where gun owners refused to show their permits when requested. The issue arose in June 2013 when two men were walking on the boardwalk in West Haven with their guns obvious to public view in hip holsters.

When stopped by police, one of them agreed to show his permit. The other did not and was charged with interfering with police. A judge dismissed the case, and a prosecutor said the arrested man, Scott Lazurek of Derby, had a permit but simply did not want to show it to police. Lazurek told police that he did not need to display the permit under the law – and the prosecutor and the judge agreed.

Rep. William Tong, a Stamford Democrat and co-chairman of the judiciary committee, said the bill is “a very simple, but important, initiative” that is necessary at a time of increased concern about gun violence and mass killings in Connecticut and beyond.

“It’s because of Newtown,” Tong said. “It’s because of Aurora and Columbine and other places across the country. We know that reality far better than other states and other communities. We feel that acutely.”

Tong rejected arguments that the issue was a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful searches and seizures.

“It’s not an infringement on your liberty,” said Tong, an attorney who has studied constitutional law. “It is not even considered a Fourth Amendment stop.”

Tong said he is concerned about Second Amendment activists “staging confrontations with police officers … to make a point.”

Uh huh.  To make a point.  Except in the case cited, the carriers were doing nothing whatsoever to justify being detained, much less arrested.  It’s the LEOs who staged the confrontation.

Let’s finish this thing about Newtown and Sandy Hook once and for all.  From the comments in this article, one commenter linked this video.  Watch it in its entirety.

It looks like a very nice gun for a very good price.

WFMY:

GREENSBORO, NC – A Cabarrus County lawmaker introduced a bill Wednesday that would allow North Carolinians to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

North Carolina is an open carry state. The current concealed carry law in North Carolina requires an applicant to take and pass a safety and training course that involves the actual firing of handguns and understanding of North Carolina gun laws. Prior to 1995, it was illegal for someone to conceal carry at all.

After news of the proposed bill broke, hundreds on social media voiced their opinions on House Bill 69.

We took some of those recurring comments on Facebook to Guilford County Sheriff BJ Barnes and Gary Lewallen, a certified firearms instructor and former Archdale Police Chief.

Barnes is a pro-second amendment advocate but doesn’t agree with the proposed bill. Lewallen is also a pro-gun and pro-second amendment, and was more neutral on the bill, with limitations.

Comment: If it is legal to open carry without training or a permit, why can’t a person conceal carry without training or a permit?

BARNES: “The CCW class, the concealed carry class, teaches you what and when you can use your gun.”

Barnes added the law requires someone to tell law enforcement they have a concealed weapon should an officer approach them. He’s worried if the proposed bill passes, people would no longer have to tell police they had a gun hidden on their body or in their car.

LEWALLEN: “They need to be able to understand their rights to carry and conceal as well understand when to use deadly force. There should be no reason why we can’t have an eight-hour class on your basic firearms and your rights to carry and conceal in North Carolina.”

Both Barnes and Lewallen agreed, they would like to see training classes take place prior to someone purchasing a gun in any situation, whether to open or conceal carry.

Comment: You already go through a background check to buy a gun, so why be redundant? A permit to conceal carry makes zero sense and it makes it zero percent safer.

BARNES: “When you open carry everyone knows you are carrying and you can avoid that person. Someone can also see if that person is violating the law while open carrying, say,  if they were to try and go into a location, such as a gun or store where they don’t want people armed.”

LEWALLEN: “It (open carrying) doesn’t prevent someone from calling the police or the sheriff and saying hey, I’ve got a person here and they’re making me feel uneasy, I’m in fear because of this gun on their side and they (police) have to come and investigate it.”

Well, there you go.  If this is the best among the “experts” this journalist could come up with, that station ought to be shut down.  As for the statement that “There should be no reason why we can’t have an eight-hour class on your basic firearms and your rights to carry and conceal in North Carolina,” hey, you don’t suppose that he stands to lose some business if constitutional carry passes in N.C., do you?  All of those concealed handgun permit classes he teaches?  I wonder how much he makes on all of that?

As for the awful Sheriff, this is just stunning.  He ought to be teaching his deputies that everyone is assumed to be carrying, all of the time.  Asking the question or waiting for someone to self identify is ridiculous and dangerous.  You understand that, right?  Only peaceable, law-aiding men and women will self-identify, whereas criminals will not, and this may lead the police into a false sense of security.  The law cannot be trusted.  If he isn’t teaching his cops that, he needs to be replaced with someone who has some common sense.

As for their idiotic comments on openly carrying, they are making this out to be something it isn’t.  North Carolina is a “Gold-Star” traditional open carry state.  I openly carry all of the time and have never had any problem from citizens or LEOs.  Women and children do not go running and screaming, and I’ve had many people stop me and chat about it.  Sending deputies out to “investigate” open carriers is a silly waste of time.  He ought to be telling the dispatchers to ask the caller what law is being broken.  “Ma’am, was he brandishing a weapon or threatening someone?”  “No?  Okay, then what he is doing is legal, and we don’t investigate legal use of firearms any more than we investigate mowing the lawn.”

In every state that has it, constitutional carry isn’t a problem, and the world doesn’t come to an end regardless of what these old timers have to say.  They’re stuck in the dark ages advocating Jim Crow laws that are bigoted and prejudiced.  Don’t be like them.