jump to navigation

Speaking of papal advisers – Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga blasts climate change “skeptics” May 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I guess they were very steamed when the Heartland Institute showed up and blew up all the falsehoods surrounding the Pontifical Academy of Science PR bonanza on gerbal worming, while exposing the diabolical connections of many high-profile participants.  It was quite embarrassing.  Time for a bit of return fire, I guess:

Pope Francis’ closest adviser castigated conservative climate change skeptics in the United States Tuesday, blaming capitalism for their views.

Speaking with journalists, Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga criticized certain “movements” in the United States that have preemptively come out in opposition to Francis’s planned encyclical on climate change.

The ideology surrounding environmental issues is too tied to a capitalism that doesn’t want to stop ruining the environment because they don’t want to give up their profits,” Rodríguez said….. [Now this is a secular report, so some may poo-poo it, but it’s pretty consistent with his worldview, which is very progressive-friendly.  Every economic form has damaged the environment, but none has proven as ready to reform itself and change practices as free enterprise.  But does Maradiaga so soon forget the sins of socialism?  Which country produces more CO2 than the US and Europe combined?  Wouldn’t that be socialist China?  Which country still has thousands of blighted square miles where literally nothing grows?  Wouldn’t that be the former Soviet Union?  Which country has drained the ancient Aral Sea?  Socialist Kazakhstan.  How about Cuba, North Korea,Vietnam……..but no, it’s just the dreaded n’ feared capitalism.]

He said many individuals both inside and outside the Catholic Church are awaiting Francis’s encyclical “with hope,” and especially watching how it might impact the United Nations’s December meeting that seeks to reach an agreement on an international climate change pact. [Obviously they’re making a major play for December.  Hopefully it’s just hype, like the 2010 Copenhagen meeting that ended in a blizzard of recriminations, and an actual blizzard]

That is Francis’s top stated goal for the encyclical, to encourage Catholics to fight climate change and influence the U.N.’s process. [Gee, upon pain of sin?]

But Rodríguez singled out the United States as the source of premature criticism, the Globe reported.

I have already heard criticism over the encyclical,” Rodríguez said of the United States, adding that it is “absurd” to be so negative about an encyclical that no one in the public has seen……[Unless the content has already been leaked in part, as it was at that Pontifical confab. I think Heartland was just there representing a clear, well-reasoned viewpoint, one might even call the truth – that climate science is very immature, that it is far from clear that the Earth is warming, and it is even less clear that humans are affecting the climate at all.  And yes there were criticisms of the Pontifical conference because it was shamefully biased, not really a conference of debate but the crowning of a new dogma.]

…….right wing group sent climate change deniers to the Vatican last month……[Now, not a bit of bias there!  I love it when the left uses science it has absolutely no clue about as a weapon!  How many of these climate change religionists have ever done CFD?]

Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, why don’t you stop your globetrotting and help your people at home, where poverty is far more rampant than it is in the countries you are lecturing?  Why don’t you go home and work on your Church, which has lost HALF its members under your 35 year tenure as bishop?

Which only provides a portent of what our beloved Mother the Church will experience should your progressive vision be realized any further than it already has.

Francis’ encyclical ghost-writer clashing with CDF, wrote book on kissing! May 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disconcerting, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, huh?, Papa, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Having an encyclical written by a ghost-writer does not affect the degree of authority it possesses (then Cardinal Ratzinger had heavy input on several of JPII’s encyclicals, or wrote them outright), and is not terribly uncommon, but it is odd to see the head of the CDF and the ghost-writer arguing publicly.

It appears the papal encyclical on so-called climate change is to be delayed again.  This has generated some nasty commentary from its real author, Bishop Victor Manuel Fernandez of Argentina, a close collaborator of Pope Francis.  A significant point of divergence between Fernandez and CDF head Cardinal Gerhard Muller seems to be whether anything a Pope (or his ghostwriter) writes is automatically orthodox and above reproach (even if not publicly released), or whether the CDF has a role to play in insuring the released product is in line with the Faith.  Talk about ultramontanism, Fernandez’ argument is certainly convenient, claiming every word that falls from his pen is like the very word of God (all emphasis in original, my comments):

According to Vaticanist Sandro Magister [LINK], Pope Francis has decided to postpone the publication of his long-awaited encyclical on the environment. The reason, according to Magister, is that the Pope realized that the document in its current state had no chance of receiving the approval of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith under the leadership of Cardinal Gerhard Müller. If it seems somewhat improper for a Cardinal to be telling a Pope what he can and can’t write, don’t fret, gentle reader: the text wasn’t written by Pope Francis at all.

The ghostwriter behind the heavily discussed encyclical is one Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernández of Tiburnia, a native of Buenos Aires. Archbishop Fernández, who belongs to Pope Francis’ inner circle in the position of most trusted theological adviser, was already heavily involved in the writing of Evangelii gaudium, and spent the Summer of 2013 in Rome for that purpose. Last March, as Pope Francis set about to compose his Eco-Encyclical, Archbishop Fernández was again flown in to do the heavy lifting. The close working relationship apparently stretches back to the time when Pope Francis was still Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, with Fernández working largely behind the scenes, drafting the future Pontiff’s important speeches and letters.

[Fernandez comments….] I have read that some say that … this Prefect guarantees the unity of the Faith and facilitates serious theology from the Pope. But Catholics know from reading the Gospel that it was to the Pope and the Bishops that Christ granted a special governance and enlightenment — and not to a Prefect or some other structure. When one hears such things, one could almost get the impression that the Pope is merely their representative, or one who has come to disturb and must, therefore, be monitored. […] The Pope is convinced that what he has written or said cannot be treated as an error. Therefore, all these things can be repeated in the future, without having to fear receiving a sanction for it. [That’s a problematic claim.  This is actually the malformed view of papal infallibility that many protestants and secular haters of the Church have. They think Catholics believe that every little word the Pope says is just the Gospel truth, no matter on how irrelevant a subject, no matter how off the cuff.  That’s seriously messed up]

[Jumping to Eliot Bougis] It is reassuring that Pope Francis sincerely believes that his words cannot be “treated” as error, but as Catholics we know that what matters is not how our words are “treated,” but whether they do or do not express error, whether they do or do not conform with Catholic teaching. A wound that is left untreated is still a defect, a risk for infection, and thus potentially lethal……..

…….All we know is that, whatever his position is on any topic, despite any and all appearances, Pope Francis’s position is simply and wholly that of the Church’s……..

……..Fernández’s trust in the reliability and coherence of all papal teaching seems very selective, since he clearly has no qualms about giving greater “theological structure” to the New Evangelization (Evangelii Gaudium), ecological stewardship of the earth (cf. promissory encyclical), or even the Theology of the Body, as his 1995 book, Heal Me with Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing, makes clear.  [While he and Pope Francis seem to put much lesser emphasis on certain other topics, formerly highly stressed by previous pontiffs]  On the last point, we must commend Pope Francis’s wise instincts for selecting such a talented writer. Fernández is so gifted a wordsmith that his book on the art of kissing was honored by being shown and read from in an Argentinian telenovela, Esperanza mia, about a priest who seduces a nun into a secret love affair. Something tells me Cdl. Maradiaga would appreciate the priest’s realism and flexibility. [Yes, the media has been attacking the Church for a very long time.  Mexican stag films seen at many a bachelor’s party from the 30s-60s almost invariably featured a “nun” and “priest” in hideous ways – the Mexican government had complete control over the nascent porn industry, too, naturally!]  

In any case, the good news is that, if you find yourself occasionally, or even regularly flummoxed by the clarity of Pope Francis’s teaching, it may not be your fault. You may just need more time to adapt. As John Allen reported in October 2013, according to Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, we are witnessing in the papacy of Francis

“the emergence of a whole new genre of papal speech — informal, spontaneous and sometimes entrusted to others in terms of its final articulation. A new genre, Lombardi suggested, needs a ‘new hermeneutic,’ one in which we don’t attach value so much to individual words as to the overall sense. … This isn’t Denzinger, and it’s not canon law.”

Neither Denzinger nor canon law, you say?

Why, yes–it’s very clear.

For more on the papal ghostwriter and author of the kissing book:

The ghostwriter of Pope Francis is a weirdo.

Why do I say this?

Well, first of all, the most important rule of ghostwriters is this: Never ever call attention you yourself. [True]

The current Pope’s ghostwriter just did exactly that. He recently went public and blamed one of the highest ranking members of the Church–Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith–for why the “Pope’s” next encyclical would be delayed. You see, he wouldn’t be able to “get the new encyclical past him”. [That strongly implies Muller found it deficient, so deficient as to object to its being published.  That’s a pretty severe rebuke to the author’s theological precepts.  And…..]

Oh sure, that bolsters the respect owed to the Magisterium.

But more importantly, this ghostwriter is a weirdo. Twenty years ago he wrote a book called Saname con tu boca (“Heal Me With Your Mouth, The Art of Kissing”).

That’s right, the actual author of Evangelii Gaudium wrote “Heal Me With Your Mouth, The Art of Kissing”.

That a priest would write such a book has struck some as a bit odd. What would a priest know about “healing with my mouth”?……. [Very odd quote follows, go to link to read]

……This man wrote Evangelii Gaudium.

Let that sink in.

Indeed.  I think I can say with absolute certainty this man would be far from my first choice for close papal advisor and ghost writer.

Disney-owned ABC: Catholics are hypocrites only to be mocked and reviled May 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Oh, and the only really honest, forthright and semi-virtuous person on the program is of course the son inclined to sodomy.  Naturally!  Isn’t it just that way in reality?!?

So after their miserable failure with “Good Christian B-tches,” ABC is back to attacking Christianity, and this time their sites are set squarely on the Church. From a hypocritical money-grubbing Lexus-driving pastor to a hyper-judgy mom to (as always) a clueless, repressed father, it’s about as original as a re-run of Happy Days.

As Patrick Archbold notes, whatever happened to not mocking religion, as per all the criticism of Pamela Gellar. The critical bit Archbold overlooked (though I know he is aware) is that islam is the de facto state religion of the West now, and especially the self-anointed sexular pagan elites who do things like produce TV programs.  Christianity is great to mock, deride, and ridicule – they never shoot back!  But those muslims are dangerous and, if the leftist would admit it, more than a little bit alluring with their enormous self-confidence and willingness to put their bomb where their mouth is [WARNING VIDEO IS DISTURBINGLY EXPLICIT. AND THIS IS “FAMILY” ENTERTAINMENT?!?]”

It’s always nice when even the trailer blasphemes Jesus Christ and mocks the Blessed Mother.  And, gee, there isn’t any subtle recruiting towards the sins of sodom with the bare-chested model and the son’s pivotal role as moral arbiter of the family, is there?

So, isn’t this over the top in its explicit worship at the altar of sexular paganism and its attack on the (sadly, no longer very true) bugbear Church of the past with all of its mean ‘ol “no’s” to mindless animal rutting?  Could the producers be a bit more obvious regarding their pyschoses?

Regarding those psychoses, would you be surprised at all to learn that this travesty is being produced by none other than the diabolically amoral and anti-Catholic Dan Savage?  Gee, a sodomite lashing out at his perceived dread enemy, the Church.  Poor thing, he continues to mock and deride the only institution that could save him.  It is profoundly sad how many souls still scourge and spit on our Savior, Who will welcome them no matter how many times they abuse Him. Of course, we all do so.  We all rely on Our Lord’s infinite mercy as we tremble at His infinite justice.  Just few of us are (thank God) so blinded by sin as to openly mock and hate our Lord.

You know, forget Disney.  If they want to produce family-destroying Church-mocking garbage like this, they can forget me ever taking one of my kids to see one of their products again, and you can forget me ever buying overpriced schlock like The Little Mermaid on DVD.

I’m of more than half a mind to have a Disney video burning party in my backyard and uploading it to Youtube.  Might even get more views than this worthless TV show will.

Heh, at the least, I’ll continue my boycott of TV.  You have no idea how liberating it is to have no TV, and how ridiculous TV appears when you catch some at someone else’s house after being away from it for a year or two.

ABC has gone ahead with this offensive program (hell will freeze over before they’d ever air ‘The Real Mahmoud’s” or “The Real Patel’s”) in spite of heavy objections from many religious leaders:

When ABC announced it had ordered a pilot, the MRC and other conservative and religious groups wrote to Ben Sherwood, president of Disney/ABC Television Group demanding the network pull the plug on the show (and received no response), and launched an online petition to pressure ABC to cancel The Real O’Neals.

Should I live to a ripe old age, I might even get to see TV die. What a glorious day that will be.

From a comment at the link, very insightful:

Dan Savage has been vomiting his hatred for the Church for a long, long time now. But all that expressing of his hatred hasn’t alleviated the hatred one bit, or made him happier one tiny bit. So it’s not the Church that’s at the root of his demented state. Had he grown up in a totally atheistic environment, he’d now be blaming all his hatred on having had to grow up in a totally atheistic environment. That’s what people who hate themselves do. They look around for the excuse they need to explain why they’re just miserable about their life, and their life choices, every waking moment.


How can something as elemental as gender be malleable and fluid, while “orientation” is set in stone from birth? May 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, pr stunts, sadness, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
comments closed

The answer is that the sexular pagans arrogate to themselves the right to make their own definitions on everything, whether they accord with any reality outside themselves or not.  Thus the ultimate error of the endarkenment libertine belief set that so dominates “thought” in our society is revealed – once truth and reason are cut off from an external, transcendent source, “truth” and “reality” all come down to will to power, in perfect Marxist fashion, so that “truth” and “reason” as understood by the vast majority of lost souls become perfect inversions of themselves.

We live in the most prevaricating, unreasonable society imaginable.  A really good post below on the harm that is inflicted on very confused and unwell souls when the media and sexular pagan elites cater to their psychoses of gender dysphoria and transgenderism:

Of all the trends currently working their way through journalism, there is perhaps none so baffling as the media’s indulgence in the transgender narrative. Journalists appear to have acquiesced to this ideology en masse. No less a formidable source than the “AP Stylebook” declared a few years ago that Associated Press employees are to use “the pronoun preferred by the individuals” in cases where confusion may arise.

………This is not a light or a partisan matter. The pushback against transgenderism is not motivated by politics but by a desire to help people and, in many cases, save their lives. A great many transgender people, having been encouraged and supported by well-meaning friends and family members for years, will experience deep regret after undergoing “gender reassignment surgery;” the post-operative transgender community has a suicide rate strikingly higher than the population at large. More broadly speaking, transgenders in general have an attempted suicide rate of over 40 percent. [and if memory serves, over half eventually succeed.  This is a rate more than an order of magnitude greater than the general population]

……...These staggering numbers do not suggest a healthy, gender-nonconforming identity; they suggest the presence of tremendous pain, confusion, and despair, and they demand serious assistance and guidance. [And yet, I tell you, we are in the midst of a positive FAD of transgenderism, where it is seen as hip to “transition” from one sex to another.  I mean, c’mon, Bruce Jenner, a woman!?  Are you freaking kidding me!  Was he struggling with his sexuality when he was winning the Decathalon at the ’76 Olympics?  Sure didn’t look like it to me.  What I think he is struggling with, is slowly aging out of the spotlight, and desperately casting about for a way to stay in it. And I think that’s playing a great role in this fad, where “transitioning” gets one all kinds of special attention – special accommodations at work, attention from management, the sudden interest of family and friends, taking part in a group that feels itself in the vanguard of another cultural revolution, the “civil rights” cause de jure.  Don’t tell me there’s “nothing in it” for them, BS, there is tons and tons in it for them]

Writing again at Vox last week, Lopez implied variously that gender as we know it is “a social construct, not a biological one,” and thus malleable, and that there also may be a “biological link to a person’s transgender identity.” These two concepts are flatly irreconcilable, but the point here is not to make sense of anything; the point is to signal your sensitivity to a controversial topic, even though such signaling encourages a mass delusion and puts peoples’ health and well-being at risk. [And I reiterate – how can gender/sex be malleable and fluid, but “sexual orientation” (really, proclivity towards perversion) be set in stone from birth?!?  And yet how many sodomites and lesbians in particular drift back and forth between normal and perverse relations throughout their lives.  Give me a break.  This is all about getting to define reality to justify one’s preferred sins.  Guess what, trannies?  No matter how much you mutilate yourself, no matter how much you flood your body with carcinogenic hormones, no matter how many mind-number chemicals you ingest, you will still have either a Y chromosome or not, and thus still be a man or a woman.  You cannot unwrite what God has written]

The issue has been cast more often than not as a battle between good and evil, light and darkness, [And indeed it is, but as per the perfect inversion I noted above, the sexular pagans are not on the side they think they are] akin to the civil-rights movements of the twentieth century or the various feminist movements of the past and present. Activist Kate Bornstein, in his book, “Gender Outlaw,” declared gender to be “an oppressive class system made all the more dangerous by the belief that it is an entirely natural state of affairs. [You tipped your hand with the Marxist rhetoric.  Marx invented the idea that the family and natural gender roles were part of the oppressive class system in order to destroy the family.  This poor character is just continuing his diabolical work]

.…….It is likewise with Jenner’s sincere belief that he is a woman. He is not a woman. He is a man. As a human being and a child of God, he deserves compassion, support, and love from his family and friends. He does not deserve to be lied to, by Sawyer or by anyone else. People who believe they are transgender need help, and they need the truth. We should deny them neither.

I couldn’t say it better myself.  Unfortunately, there are so few in our culture today, and maybe (and this is incredible) even fewer in the Church, who are willing to speak such truth with charity.  Most would rather just roll along with whatever moral atrocity is being advanced from one moment to the next, blithely ignoring the chaos gathering around them.  It’s so much easier that way.  People who speak out against the sexular pagans get their destroyed!

We must pray for better shepherds.  It is the collapse of the public moral authority of the Church that is at the heart of advance of the sexular pagan agenda.

Open Carry coming to Texas – bishop’s conference, law enforcement leaders opposed, what do you think? May 14, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, episcopate, error, General Catholic, non squitur, persecution, secularism, self-serving, Society, Virtue.
comments closed

A bit non sequitur, but a bill that interests me more than a bit, since I don’t have a concealed handgun license.  Some major law enforcement organizations and police chiefs are opposed to a bill (HB 910) that looks likely to pass the legislature this spring, allowing law-abiding citizens (no priors) to openly carry weapons on the streets.  Texas Catholic Conference is naturally opposed, or at least seeks carve outs for their turf (again, naturally), as are some very vocal anti-gun rights advocates who also happen to be police chiefs or other leaders of LEO groups.  And statists, they’re also generally statists, like Austin police chief Art Acevedo, who has made no bones about his disdain for the 2nd Amendment:

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, who has spoken out against open carry several times, took to social media Tuesday to vent his feelings on an amendment to HB 910, a bill that will likely bring the practice to the Lone Star State in coming months. The amendment would prohibit law enforcement from stopping a law-abiding citizen who is openly carrying and hasn’t broken the law.

“Yesterday’s amendment to Texas’ Open Carry Legislation is beyond belief and Aiken (sic) to open season for gang members, drug cartels, outlaw motor cycle gangs and any other criminal or extremist to defy the law with impunity, just brilliant!,” Acevedo said. “If criminals, drug cartels, and extremists had a seat at the policy writing table they couldn’t have come up with s (sic) better Amendment.”…….

……..“Here is a scenario, next time groups face off in our Capital City at the Capitol, Klan with their hoods on, Panthers with their faces covered, ISIS sympathizers with their faces covered and just about any other extremist group, armed with firearms authorized by Open-Carry, law enforcement will have absolutely no authority to ensure the people who are armed as they wish…” said Acevedo. [Here is a different scenario, other states like Arizona have had open carry for many years and the dire situations described above have never once been seen.  Now during the height of the TEA party rallies in 2010 media did try to dishonestly spin a handful of individuals openly carrying ARs and other semi-autos as a dread threat, but more reasoned analysis showed these individuals were posing no threat to anyone.  This is nothing but scare-mongering.  Good grief, when is the last time the Klan had a rally anywhere?!?  These guys can never get past the 60s]

……“The concern is, when we see somebody with a weapon, how do we tell if they are legally carrying,”McLaughlin said. “If you see a police office that is carrying what we called ‘uncovered,’ you’re going to see a badge. In this instance, it’s going to be difficult to determine who is legally carrying and who is not.”  [And that’s easier when guns are concealed?  Criminals don’t often brandish their weapons until they are already in the midst of committing a crime, as they don’t want to call attention to themselves.  But there is a huge problem with this viewpoint anyways, it fundamentally rejects the 2nd Amendment as plainly written and looks on gun rights as a privilege to be handed out to a chosen few, rather than being the status quo for all citizens in the land.  It, too, is fundamentally statist.]

Meanwhile, gun rights advocates in Texas feel that Chief Acevedo’s comments are missing the mark.

“Chief Art Acevedo’s despicable whining about losing his ability to violate the rights of law abiding gun owners is not in keeping with Texas values and constitution principles,” Open Carry Texas President CJ Grisham told Guns.com Thursday. “Chief Acevedo has proven time and again that he has nothing but hate and vitriol for gun owners.” [True statement.  I think we see a fundamental outlook here, and maybe it’s got some basis in reason, and maybe it doesn’t, but police increasingly see private citizens not as a public to be “protected and served” but as a threat to be neutralized.  So the desire is not to deter crime and deal with the relatively few lawless individuals, but to deter or contain the threat posed by non-LEO individuals as much as possible.  I can see why police might develop that view – even if I think it terribly problematic – but I think it inescapable that such an outlook basically sees the 2nd Amendment and the idea of a free, armed citizenry as something to be done away with]

In 2013, the chief openly mocked gun owners on Twitter then backpedalled and apologized after deleting the remarks.

Last December Acevedo called on citizens to report “gun enthusiasts” and those “armed with these types of firearms,” referring to modern sporting rifles like AR15s and AK47s.

“Now, he wants the ability to detain law abiding citizens who are peacefully exercising their right to self-defense abiding bearing arms and calling them extremists,” Grisham said. “It’s time to stop importing anti-gun police chiefs from authoritarian states like New York and California so we can preserve our independent and liberty loving spirit. Acevedo is a threat to that and should lose his peace officers license in Texas.”

Grisham advised his group is planing an open carry rally in Austin to protest Acevedo’s statements.

Texas HB 910 is currently in the Senate for a procedural vote to approve the amendments made by the House and then to Gov. Abbott who has repeatedly advised that he would sign open carry legislation that makes it to his desk.

The law would take effect in January 2016.

While there is a lot of evidence that concealed carry may have a dampening effect on crime, data for open carry is more limited and less consistent.  Open carry is often associated with long arms, which are much more difficult to conceal.  I tend to think that having obviously armed citizens walking around would tend to deter at least some types of crime, especially more violent ones.

For me, personally, I don’t freak out when I see armed individuals.  Frankly, while I try to retain respect and thanks for police, I’m generally more apprehensive around a cop than I am around some dude with pistol. Sorry, but I’ve had too many interactions with police where they behaved in an arbitrary and capricious manner.  And frankly, I’ve been lucky.

At our local TLM parish, there are tons of people with CHLs and I know they carry in church all the time.  Again, that doesn’t cause me the slightest apprehension, and actually makes me feel more comfortable.  There have been a few threats against our parish, so I’m glad there are individuals there to deal with them.  The Texas Catholic Conference was hoping there would be exemptions put into the bill that would deny people the right to carry on Church property.  I’m not surprised, TCC and the bishops generally have a pronounced left wing approach to all social matters.

Which is frankly a little disingenuous, since the large majority of parishes have armed off-duty police on grounds at least on Sunday, and Church-affiliated schools, college campuses, and hospitals often have them all the time.  Again, more than a little bit of statist mentality, armed individuals are fine when they can be perceived as being under TCC control, but not when they are private “free agents.”

I know I may be more comfortable around guns than some readers.  What do you think of open carry? How would you feel if confronted with an armed individual at a store or out on the town, one that was not clearly part of law enforcement?   Are you more favorable to concealed carry than open carry?  And whatever happened to gun racks on pickups, they used to be everywhere and now you never see them?