“Old minds are like old horses; you must exercise them if you wish to keep them in working order.”
– John Adams
November 1, 2026
That’s why our enemies have been telling us to be tolerant.
This is a somber reminder that in a struggle for political power, the most intolerant side will win. Every single time. There are no exceptions.
It is time to be intolerant of those who wish us destroyed. And intolerant of evil as a whole.
No more turning the other cheek.
— InfantryDort (@infantrydort) October 29, 2026
Well, clearly it’s the democraps, that’s who.
Who’s Behind the Mystery Group Trying to Turn Gun Owners Against Republicans?
In the final days of the midterm elections, a group that’s shrouded in mystery is spending some serious money in an attempt to undercut Republican candidates’ support from gun owners.
According to NBC News, an outfit called “Stand Your Ground” is involved in at least three races around the country: Florida’s 14th Congressional District; where Republicans are hoping to oust Democrat Kathy Castor; the 1st Congressional District in South Carolina currently represented by Nancy Mace; and the Minnesota Senate race, where Michelle Tafoya has mounted a surprisingly competitive campaign against Democrat Peggy Flanagan.
In South Carolina, the mailers are targeting Republican nominee Jenny Costa Honeycutt with claims that she “challenged our 2nd Amendment rights and piled more restrictions on responsible gun owners.”
But in a recent debate between Honeycutt and Democrat Nancy Lacore, it was pretty clear which candidate is actually looking to pile more restrictions on gun owners.
Lacore, a retired Navy vice admiral, backed comprehensive universal background checks and longer waiting periods before someone can purchase a gun.
“There is no rush to have a gun,” she said. “You should be able to wait until that background check is done, and we need to close that loophole because we’ve seen the impact of that right here in our community.”
Honeycutt, a Charleston County Councilwoman, argued that more gun control laws wouldn’t necessarily avert tragedies like the one in Oregon, and pointed to early reports that an armed bystander had been the one who took down the shooter.
“If he hadn’t had a weapon in order to do that, the outcome may have been totally different,” Honeycutt said.
Flyers from the group in Minnesota, meanwhile, claim that Michelle Tafoya backs “red flag” laws, while ignoring Peggy Flanagan’s support for bans on semi-automatic centerfire rifles and “high capacity” magazines, universal background checks, and “red flag” laws. The flyers also ignore the fact that Evertown, Giffords, and Brady have all endorsed Flanagan’s campaign for U.S. Senate.
So who’s behind Stand Your Ground? At the moment, it’s a mystery.
Stand Your Ground is not registered as a political group with the Federal Election Commission. Corporation records in Delaware show a nonprofit group called Stand Your Ground registered there less than two months ago, though it’s not certain this group and the one sending the mailers are the same entity.
However, political nonprofits often register in Delaware, where corporations have to disclose little public information.
Some of these tactics have popped up in other recent elections. In the 2018 midterms, Senate Democrats’ top outside group funded other nonprofits that attacked Republican Senate candidates from the right on guns, immigration and other issues.
As NBC News says, we’ve seen shady tactics like this before, and the Democrats have rolled out some other dirty tricks this cycle like recruiting a random Dan Sullivan to run for Senate in Alaska in the hopes of confusing voters who want to vote for incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. Trickery like this isn’t exactly a sign of confidence in Democrats’ ability to win on the merits, but at the end of the day it’s the votes that matter and not how they were achieved.
Gun owners need to be wary about the messaging they’re getting, do their own research, and vote for the candidate that will best defend the Second Amendment if elected. Some of those Republicans may not be perfect, but in almost every case they’re going to be far better than their Democrat counterparts.
Ballot measure proposes expanding Arkansas constitution’s right to bear arms
A proposed constitutional amendment aimed at solidifying Arkansans’ right to keep and bear arms is needed to better protect that right, supporters say, but opponents argue it will make it more difficult to implement gun safety regulations.
Issue 2 would amend the state constitution to clarify that the right to keep and bear arms includes “without limitation” the possession and use of ammunition, firearm accessories and firearm components.
Arkansas’ constitution currently says the state’s citizens “shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense.”
The proposal is one of four ballot measures being considered by Arkansas voters in this year’s midterm election.
The proposal comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider whether bans on assault weapons violate the Second Amendment. Gun Owners of Arkansas President Gary Epperson said in an email that once that issue is settled, he expects the battle to shift to efforts to restrict access to ammunition and accessories. Issue 2 incorporates language into the Arkansas constitution in anticipation of that, Epperson said.
The proposed constitutional amendment is supported by GO-AR for Issue 2, a ballot question committee comprised of Gun Owners of Arkansas board members. The nonprofit advocacy group has donated more than $20,000 to the committee, which has used the funds for advertising, signs and printed materials, according to an October finance report.
Epperson, who’s also the committee’s president, said they proposed the wording of Issue 2 and lobbied legislators to get it on the ballot via their referred amendment process.
The Arkansas constitution allows state lawmakers to refer up to three proposed amendments to voters on the general election ballot. Republicans Sen. John Payton and Rep. Matt Duffield sponsored the resolution that created Issue 2.
‘Give me the video’: Armed man shot dead by Valdosta store clerk after shooting incident
A deadly shooting at a Valdosta convenience store unfolded after an armed man allegedly shot another person, continued firing as the victim fled and then threatened a store employee while demanding surveillance footage. Police say the clerk acted in self-defense and will not face charges.
VALDOSTA, Ga. — A violent confrontation outside a Valdosta convenience store turned deadly when a gunman allegedly shot another man, continued firing as the wounded victim fled and then stormed inside the business demanding surveillance footage — only to be fatally shot by a store employee who feared for his life.
Valdosta police say surveillance video and other evidence confirm the employee acted in self-defense and will not face criminal charges.
The violence erupted around 12:30 a.m. Sunday, Oct. 25, at a convenience store in the 1300 block of North Troup Street.
Gunman shoots victim, continues firing as he flees
According to the Valdosta Police Department, a 53-year-old man was outside the store drinking alcohol and carrying a handgun when he became involved in an altercation with a 38-year-old man. Investigators say the older man pulled his weapon and opened fire. Even as the 38-year-old ran from the store, the gunman continued shooting at him.
Inside the business, an employee heard the gunfire and rushed behind the counter for protection while attempting to activate the door locks. But the armed man entered the store before the employee could secure it.
Police say the gunman began yelling threats at the clerk while holding his firearm and demanding the store’s surveillance video. Fearing for his life, the employee pulled his own gun and fired multiple shots, stopping the threat.
Gunman dies, wounded victim survives
Responding officers found the 53-year-old lying on the store floor with multiple gunshot wounds and a handgun beside him. Officers immediately began lifesaving measures before South Georgia Emergency Medical Services and the Valdosta Fire Department arrived. The man was transported to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
Meanwhile, police received a second 911 call reporting another gunshot victim inside a vehicle near North Ashley Street and Rosedale Drive. Investigators determined that victim was the 38-year-old man who had been shot outside the convenience store. Lowndes County deputies helped get him to the hospital. Police confirmed he was treated and released.
Surveillance video confirms employee’s account. Valdosta detectives and crime scene investigators examined surveillance footage and collected evidence to reconstruct the deadly confrontation. According to police, the evidence showed the 53-year-old initiated the gunfire outside the store before entering the business and threatening the employee.
Investigators determined the clerk fired because he reasonably feared for his life. The employee has not been charged with any offense.
Police seek witnesses who fled scene. Investigators also discovered surveillance footage showing several people approaching the store after the shooting and recording the wounded man lying on the floor.
Police say those individuals fled when they heard approaching sirens. Detectives are working to identify them and determine whether they have information relevant to the investigation.
Police Chief Leslie Manahan criticized the decision to record the aftermath rather than remain to assist investigators. “If you witness a possible life-threatening incident, the priority should be getting the person help and providing truthful information to law enforcement,” Manahan said.
Deadly confrontation remains under investigation. Authorities have not released the identities of the deceased gunman or the surviving victim….
Halloween, has its origins in the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain, which marked the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter.
It was believed that on this night, the veil between the living and the dead was thin, allowing spirits to return to earth.
It is said that Pope Gregory III established November 1st as ‘All Saints Day’ also called ‘All Hallows Day’ sometime in the 8th century. So, as the evening before would be ‘All Hallows Eve’ – ‘eve‘ being a contraction of evening – and even more contracted; Hallowe’en, we know how the name came to be.
October 31, 2026
Democrats Say the Second Amendment Limits Gun Control. Just Don’t Ask Them How.
Among the dozens of amicus briefs filed in defense of “assault weapon” bans last week, there are a few that stand out, either because of the ludicrous nature of their arguments or who’s making them.
In the case of the brief filed on behalf of 189 Democrats in Congress, it’s both the “who” and “what” that makes the brief notable. While not every Democrat on Capitol Hill lent their support to the brief (Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez are absent, for example), a substantial majority of Democrat House and Senate members did (including John Fetterman, for anyone who mistakenly thinks he’s a moderate when it comes to Second Amendment issues). Their argument is simple, but it’s also glaringly incomplete.
The basic premise of the brief is that “lawmakers have broad authority to address gun violence, subject to the Second Amendment’s limits.” Fair enough, I suppose. But the obvious question then becomes, what are those limits?
Although the Second Amendment imposes constitutional limits on firearms regulation, within those limits, decisions about whether and how to regulate assault weapons properly belong to federal, state, and local lawmakers.
This is a repeated theme in the brief. They even state that judges are responsible for interpreting and enforcing those limits. But they fail to identify what those limits would actually prohibit Congress from doing.
On pages 4 and 5, they point out that Heller recognized an individual right that isn’t unlimited. They also cite Bruen and Rahimi for the proposition that modern regulations need not be identical to historical restrictions, arguing that legislatures retain regulatory authority, particularly when confronting new technologies or changing public-safety concerns.
But they broadly ignore Heller’s actual holding that D.C. couldn’t ban handguns commonly possessed for lawful self-defense or require firearms to be stored in such a way that made them inaccessible for use in self-defense.
That’s a pretty big omission, given that Viramontes and Grant are all about whether commonly possessed semi-automatic rifles can be prohibited.
On page 17, the Democrats do acknowledge that “the enshrinement of a right takes certain policy choices ‘off the table.’” Yet again, though, they decline to state what those policies might be.
If the government can prohibit the possession of some of the most popular rifles in America, what firearms are beyond the reach of legislators who want to ban them? Handguns? Shotguns? Every semiautomatic firearm? The lawmakers offer no answers, just repeated assurances that constitutional limits exist somewhere out there, even as they urge the justices not to enforce one of the most consequential limits identified by the Supreme Court: the protection of arms in common use for lawful purposes.
Imagine 189 members of Congress telling the Supreme Court that the First Amendment absolutely limits the government’s ability to censor speech, but that lawmakers should still be free to ban political commentary they consider dangerous. And when asked what speech the government can’t prohibit, they simply repeat that the First Amendment has limits on government power, without ever saying what those limits are.
If these Democrats want to assert that there are limits on Congress’s power to regulate firearms, I’m in full agreement. But when they argue that those limits don’t include a ban on the most popular rifles in the country, they’ve lost me. And I’d like to know what, exactly, these lawmakers believe is off-limits thanks to the Second Amendment.
They repeatedly acknowledge that constitutional boundaries exist, but never identify where those boundaries lie. That’s a glaring omission from 189 members of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold restrictions on a fundamental civil right. If they believe the Second Amendment actually constrains their authority, they ought to be able to tell the American people what they think it prevents them from doing.
And if they can’t or won’t tell us, the most logical conclusion is that they don’t really believe the Second Amendment places any meaningful limits on their power at all.
Virginia AG: ‘AR-15s Are Machine Guns Except That They’ Are Not
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones, who fantasized about murdering his political opponent and wishing death upon the man’s children, thinks the most popular semiautomatic rifle on the market is the same thing as a machine gun.
Jones made his remarkable ignorance on guns and the Second Amendment known on Wednesday in the form of a brief to the Supreme Court, which is slated to weigh a challenge to an Illinois county’s ban on the possession and transfer of so-called “assault weapons”: AR-15s and similar semiautomatic firearms. In the document filed in support of Cook County’s firearm prohibitions, Jones argues that “AR-15s bear nearly all the same features that take machineguns outside the Second Amendment’s protection.”
He kicks off the brief by lying that AR-15s were restricted by states “since shortly after” they “became broadly available to American consumers.” Colt began selling ArmaLite’s semiautomatic rifle to Americans in the 1960s, but it wasn’t until 1989 that California sought to interfere in those transfers.
Jones also points to AR-15 restrictions in “11 states and the District of Columbia — collectively representing over 34 percent of the United States’ population” as proof that states like his can and should be allowed to dictate Americans’ Second Amendment right to own semiautomatic rifles.
Virginia lies in its opening sentence. AR15s were available in the 1960s and on to consumers, and the first ban didn’t come until 1989 in California. Even by 2000, only seven states banned them.
Today 12 do if you count Virginia’s enjoined provision, but five of those came during the post-Bruen tantrum since 2022.
These are outlier laws.
Virginia tries to get ahead of this criticism by saying AR15s were rare until the 1990s. Even if that were true, AWBs do not only affect AR15s; tons of other common guns were banned too.
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) October 28, 2026
“AR-15s are machineguns, except that they — at least to start — have semiautomatic fire rather than automatic fire,” Jones also writes.
There are significant legal and physical distinctions between automatic firearms and semiautomatic rifles. Most notably, and as the name suggests, automatic rifles or “machine guns” fire continuous rounds. Semiautomatic rifles, however, require an individual trigger pull to fire each round. That means the number of rounds fired depends on how fast one person can pull an AR-15 trigger and how many rounds are loaded in their magazine.
Although the big word on the left is ‘compassion,’ the big agenda on the left is dependency.
– Thomas Sowell
October 30, 2026
The legal possession and carrying of assault weapons in New York City’s crowded public spaces would also force officers to make rapid, highly fraught determinations based on little information about who is likely to be a lawful and peaceful firearm carrier and who intends to use the firearm for criminal harm. To be sure, police officers are tasked everyday with decisions that test the tensions between public safety and constitutional rights. Officers rely on their training, understanding of the law, and best judgment to determine which activities require further investigation and which do not.
But the legalization of assault weapons in New York City would make these encounters even more difficult to navigate. The presence of these weapons in public places would lead to alarm and increased emergency calls, and it would be the rare situation where an officer could discern without intrusive investigation whether the person was carrying the firearm legally. Judging correctly whether an individual carrying an assault weapon means no harm could be the difference between life and death. NYPD officers, committed to following the law and keeping people safe, would regularly be put in a seemingly impossible position. A constitutional doctrine that puts our officers in this bind ignores the reality of policing in a densely populated and pedestrian-focused city like New York.
NYPD officers regularly do not encounter this problem with handgun possession because the City’s licensing regulations allow only concealed carry. See 38 R.C.N.Y. § 5-01(b). Currently, if an officer sees a firearm carried in the open or receives a report of such behavior, there is probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, permitting the officer to intercede. That certainty would disappear if the carrying of assault weapons became legal because assault weapons can only be carried openly. NYPD officers should not be placed in a position where they are constantly having to determine, with no good options, how to thread the needle between Second Amendment rights and their mission to protect the public from harm.
Finally, the NYPD is aware that organizations representing other law-enforcement entities have filed a brief in support of petitioners, arguing, among other things, that those entities “welcome the help” from citizens armed with assault weapons “in fighting crime” so that the “burden on law enforcement” is eased.22 The NYPD strongly disagrees with this sentiment. In the NYPD’s institutional experience, the job of law enforcement will become much more difficult and dangerous, at least in a densely populated city such as New York, if members of the public are carrying highly powerful and particularly lethal firearms.
Whatever the merits of these amici’s views when it comes to their own jurisdictions, they simply make no sense in a place like New York City. The Second Amendment should pose no barrier to New York City and New York State choosing a different path for protecting our officers and the public.
— New York Police Department amicus brief in Viramontes v. Cook County
BLUF:
The tools have changed. The craftsmanship has evolved. But the American tradition of building firearms predates the Constitution itself, and that history cannot be erased by calling privately manufactured firearms “ghost guns.”
America’s independence depended on private gunsmiths who manufactured, repaired, and improved firearms. That history carries significant implications for today’s fight over privately manufactured firearms and the Second Amendment.
As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, the Department of War is recognizing the gunsmiths who helped secure the nation’s independence. These craftsmen did more than repair broken muskets. They manufactured firearms from raw materials, developed new weapons, and kept American forces armed throughout the Revolutionary War.
In a historical feature published May 29, 2026, the Department of War acknowledged the essential contributions of private gunsmiths who supplied the Continental Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and colonial militias with firearms.
The report highlights an important piece of American history that remains relevant today: Americans were manufacturing their own firearms long before the Second Amendment was ratified. The ability to manufacture, repair, and maintain firearms was not merely a popular pastime. It was essential to colonial life, individual defense, and ultimately the fight for American independence.
That historical tradition carries particular significance as gun-control advocates and government regulators continue targeting privately manufactured firearms, frequently labeling them with the politically charged term “ghost guns.”
Oregon Gun Rights Advocate Pens Legislation to Prevent Another Bend Shooting
The shooting in Bend, Oregon has largely fallen out of the news cycle. That’s hardly surprising. After all, not just are the midterm elections sucking a lot of the oxygen out of the room, but an armed citizen ended the attack, thus making it an incredibly inconvenient incident to continue discussing for the mainstream media.
But we really should talk about it. After all, for the people in Oregon, it’s still news, and Cam noted that anti-gun groups want new gun control legislation while state Democrats aren’t exactly pouncing on the opportunity. Republicans have differing thoughts.
And so does gun rights advocate Derek LeBlanc.
Derek LeBlanc, winner of the “Activist of the Year” award from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, posted a lengthy message on the ORGOAL website.
“No longer will we tolerate the elites protecting themselves with guns only to leave our children defenseless or without the same level of protection,” he declared.
“I wrote a piece of legislation on Friday, the day after the shooting, that would repeal all of the insane ordinances that have led to the slaughter of one of our most valuable resources, our children. The bill I wrote would modify all of the Oregon Revised Statutes that created potential criminal penalties for the hero in Bend. It would also give civil protections for the defenders. Gone are the days when we will allow the hypocrisy of gun control to continue to put lives at risk. We are the captains now, if you understand the meme.”
On Nov. 3, Oregon will choose either a new governor, or re-elect its current governor, Tina Kotek, who has shown no appreciation toward gun owners or the Second Amendment.
LeBlanc’s lengthy actually challenges his readers to give this some thought.
“So how do we fix this problem, you ask,” he posits. “For one, we end the war on guns. Yes, we can admit some guns are used inappropriately, but in the majority of cases, guns are used for defensive purposes. In fact, the CDC just reported that guns are used defensively up to 3 million times annually, quite often without a shot being fired.”