Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom. It is a very serious consideration, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.–Samuel Adams
JANUARY 30, 2026
The ‘Common Sense Gun Control’ Lie: How Antigun States Restrict Access to the Second Amendment.
Events in Minnesota have created some strange temporary bedfellows. An opponent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s efforts, Alex Pretti, was shot and killed by federal officers. Because he happened to be carrying a firearm while protesting against deportations, the typical talking points coming from many politicians have completely flipped from their typical stances on guns and the Second Amendment.
On the one hand, some Trump administration officials, and later even the President himself, asserted that carrying a firearm at a protest or near law enforcement officers is illegal. Both of those claims are false in Minnesota, with the latter claim being false everywhere else, too. Whether any of this leads to a policy shift remains to be seen, though that seems unlikely. Generally speaking, the second Trump Administration has been very helpful to Second Amendment activists, particularly to those of us in antigun states like California.
But just as the President and a few members of his administration were rhetorically throwing the Second Amendment under the bus, some politicians who have long opposed gun rights suddenly express support for the right to keep and bear arms. This support, of course, is phony.
As all of this was going on, Virginia Democrats were advancing legislation to ban the gun and magazine he carried, along with many other popular firearms. Just like stray comments from President Trump likely don’t indicate any real shift in policy, neither does Democrats suddenly voicing support for the Second Amendment mean that they will be opposing further gun control laws.
The Age of Functional Illiteracy
Functional illiteracy was once a social diagnosis, not an academic one. It referred to those who could technically read but could not follow an argument, sustain attention, or extract meaning from a text. It was never a term one expected to hear applied to universities. And yet it has begun to surface with increasing regularity in conversations among faculty themselves. Literature professors now admit—quietly in offices, more openly in essays—that many students cannot manage the kind of reading their disciplines presuppose. They can recognise words; they cannot inhabit a text.
The evidence is no longer anecdotal. University libraries report historic lows in book borrowing. National literacy assessments show long-term declines in adult reading proficiency. Commentators in The Atlantic, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and The New York Times describe a generation for whom long-form reading has become almost foreign. A Victorian novel, once the ordinary fare of undergraduate study, now requires extraordinary accommodation. Even thirty pages of assigned reading can provoke anxiety, resentment, or open resistance.
It would be dishonest to ignore the role of the digital world in this transformation. Screens reward speed, fragmentation, and perpetual stimulation; sustained attention is neither required nor encouraged. But to lay the blame solely at the feet of technology is a convenient evasion. The crisis of reading within universities is not merely something that has happened to the academy. It is something the academy has, in significant measure, helped to produce.
The erosion of reading was prepared by intellectual shifts within the humanities themselves—shifts that began during the canon wars of the late twentieth century. Those battles were never only about which books should be taught. They were about whether literature possessed inherent value, whether reading required discipline, whether difficulty was formative or oppressive, and whether the humanities existed to shape students or merely to affirm them. In the decades that followed, entire traditions of reading were dismantled with remarkable confidence and astonishing speed.
The result is a moment of institutional irony. The very disciplines charged with preserving literary culture helped undermine the practices that made such culture possible. What we are witnessing now is not simply a failure of students to read, but the delayed consequence of ideas that taught generations of readers to approach texts with suspicion rather than attention, critique rather than encounter.
This essay is part of a larger project to trace that history, to explain how a war over the canon helped usher in an age in which reading itself is slipping from our grasp, and why the consequences of that war are now returning to the academy with unmistakable force.
Marco Rubio’s testimony on the Maduro op before the Senate indicates that the Trump administration very carefully awaited the right operational conditions before risking it, a process that Rubio called a “trigger operation”.
This attitude is likely to govern any action against Iran. Despite the media’s characterization of Trump as stupid and impulsive, the record reveals a decisive but exquisitely thorough command system. Given this, what might the US feasibly attempt in Iran with a reasonable prospect of success? Four types of actions are likely.
Operations to:
1. Further degrade Iran’s nuclear and missile programs through limited strikes or sanctions.
2. Disrupt IRGC command, control, and communications (C3) via cyber or targeted strikes.
3. Conduct decapitation strikes on IRGC or regime leadership.
4. Achieve full regime change or complete IRGC dissolution.
Objectives 1 and 2 have a good chance of success.
Objective 3 has a fair prospect of happening.
Objective 4 is probably out of reach in the very short run. But 1 and 2 would lay the foundation for 3 and the first triple would set up the 4th.
While there is no way to predict American action in Iran, it is likely to be cumulative and sequential with opportunistic branches.
Concealed carry holder shoots attempted robber on Chicago’s NW Side
CHICAGO – A concealed carry holder shot one of two robbery suspects early Tuesday while being confronted at gunpoint on Chicago’s Northwest Side.
What we know:
The incident happened around 2:40 a.m. near the intersection of Montana Street and Laramie Avenue in the Cragin neighborhood.
Chicago police said the 39-year-old man was getting out of his vehicle when two men approached him and one of them pulled out a gun and demanded his belongings.
Police said the victim, who is a licensed concealed-carry holder, drew his own gun and fired multiple shots, striking one of the suspects in the legs. Officers took both suspects into custody at the scene.
The wounded suspect, a 23-year-old man, was treated by paramedics with the Chicago Fire Department and taken to Illinois Masonic Medical Center where he was listed in good condition.
Area Five detectives are investigating.
Proposed WV House Bill Would Expand Castle Doctrine, Strengthen Self-Defense Protections
CHARLESTON, WV (LOOTPRESS) — A newly introduced bill in the West Virginia House of Delegates would expand the state’s Castle Doctrine laws, strengthening legal protections for people who use force — including deadly force — in self-defense.
House Bill 4878, introduced on January 28, would broaden when and where West Virginians may legally defend themselves, their homes, and others, while also shielding them from both criminal charges and civil lawsuits when force is lawfully used.
The legislation clarifies that a lawful occupant may use reasonable force, including deadly force, against an intruder or attacker inside a home or residence if they reasonably believe the intruder could cause death, serious bodily harm, or intends to commit a felony.
The bill also extends those protections beyond the walls of the home to include the curtilage — areas immediately surrounding a residence, such as yards, driveways, and porches — and removes any duty to retreat when a person is lawfully present.
“Congress may carry on the most wicked and pernicious of schemes under the dark veil of secrecy. The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
– Patrick Henry
January 29, 2026
Know Your Gun: When you trust your life to a tool, you must know it inside and out.
We know that when we are faced with the threat of serious bodily injury or death, our focus will be on the threat. This is not so much a conscious effort as a fact that our natural survival system has taken over. For that reason, our manipulation of our defensive equipment must be practiced until its operation and deployment almost become subconscious functions. This is the main reason so many of us caution against the continual switching back and forth of that equipment—especially our daily-carry guns. While firing the defensive shot should certainly be a conscious decision, getting the gun into play should be a task that can be accomplished without thinking. To accomplish this, one really needs to know their defensive handgun.
The only negligent discharge with injuries I ever witnessed in a training class involved an older fellow who had carried a revolver in his law-enforcement career. Now, retired and working security, he had decided to carry a striker-fired pistol. The only trouble was that he had not taken the time to actually learn his new gun, and had real trouble keeping his finger off the trigger when the sights weren’t on the target. The double-action revolver trigger requires a significant amount of pressure, so this gross violation of the safety rules probably never resulted in a negative outcome for him, but that’s pure luck. With the lighter trigger of a striker-fired pistol, luck is less available. As you might guess, he shot himself in the leg while improperly reholstering his new gun.
Sometimes manufacturers make things difficult, like Smith & Wesson with its Models 39 and 59. Those were good, solid guns, but you pushed the safety up instead of down—the opposite of the single-action semi-automatics. If someone wasn’t really checked out on those, they might get a click instead of a bang or vice versa, either of which could create problems depending upon the situation.
So, it is critical for the armed citizen to totally familiarize themselves with their chosen defense gun. This means knowing how to safely load and unload the gun. It involves knowing the proper manipulation of all the various safety controls the gun might have. And, it involves knowing what the most common malfunctions might be and how to deal with them. All of these things are not going to be learned in a day, but take time and training. Once these things are learned, they must be practiced.
While the semi-automatic pistol is certainly the most popular defensive handgun, revolver shooters don’t get a free pass. Do you know how to keep your ejector rod from backing out? Do you know how to avoid having a spent cartridge get stuck under the ejector star? Finally, in the midst of a gunfight where you can only get a partial reload into your revolver, which way does the cylinder rotate? We know that Colts rotate clockwise whereas Smith & Wesson rotate counterclockwise, but what about the double-action Taurus or your Ruger SP101? You’d better find out.
Knowing the gun one carries is probably the main reason why many of the old-timers have stayed with guns of older design. It’s not that the new guns aren’t as good, it’s just that the older models are what these folks grew up with. They know them, know how they operate, know their shortcomings and know how to deal with any types of problems that might arise. That’s what knowing your gun is all about—the ability to effectively bring it into play without a lot of conscious thought.
By contrast, an old-timer of my acquaintance—a double-action revolver guy of long standing—advises that he is going to switch to a 9 mm for everyday carry. He has spent a good deal of range time and is satisfied with the function and accuracy of his new choice. Nonetheless, his next step is to attend a class at Gunsite with his new gun. All of which is part of the process of knowing your gun.
Finally, to end this piece on a lighter note, I would share this humorous—and probably apocryphal—story of a young man who just had to have a 1911. Obviously, he had never even fired one prior to his purchase. Within days, he was back in the gun store complaining that his new gun jammed. The in-house gunsmith checked it, cleaned and oiled it and reported that he hadn’t found any problem.
Sometime later, the young shooter returned, still complaining about his gun jamming. This time the gunsmith, after checking the gun, took the customer back to the shooting trap so he could witness the gun being fired. The gunsmith fired an entire magazine into the test trap and the slide locked back. “Look! It jammed again,” said the customer.
Know your defense gun. I mean really know your chosen defense gun. It is important.
Are meat eaters really more likely to live to 100 than non-meat eaters, as a recent study suggests?
People who don’t eat meat may be less likely than meat eaters to reach the age of 100, according to a recent study. But before you reconsider your plant-based diet, there’s more to these findings than meets the eye.
The research tracked over 5,000 Chinese adults aged 80 and older who participated in the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey, a nationally representative study that began in 1998. By 2018, those following diets that don’t contain meat were less likely to become centenarians compared with meat eaters.
On the surface, this appears to contradict decades of research showing that plant-based diets are good for your health. Vegetarian diets, for example, have been consistently linked to lower risks of heart disease and stroke, type 2 diabetes and obesity. These benefits come partly from higher fibre intake and lower saturated fat consumption.
So what’s going on? Before drawing any firm conclusions, there are several important factors to consider.
Your body’s needs change as you age
This study focused on adults aged 80 and older, whose nutritional needs differ markedly from those of younger people. As we age, physiological changes alter both how much we eat and what nutrients we need. Energy expenditure drops, while muscle mass, bone density and appetite often decline. These shifts increase the risk of malnutrition and frailty.
Most evidence for the health benefits of diets that exclude meat comes from studies of younger adults rather than frail older populations. Some research suggests older non-meat eaters face a higher risk of fractures due to lower calcium and protein intake.
In later life, nutritional priorities shift. Rather than focusing on preventing long-term diseases, the goal becomes maintaining muscle mass, preventing weight loss and ensuring every mouthful delivers plenty of nutrients.
The study’s findings may, therefore, reflect the nutritional challenges of advanced age, rather than any inherent problems with plant-based diets. Crucially, this doesn’t diminish the well-established health benefits of these diets for younger and healthier adults.
I love it when you forget the “think it, don’t say it” part. I’m pretty sure you weren’t supposed to mention that Democrats planned to have polling places full of illegals.
— MoodyRedhead (@moodyredhead) January 28, 2026
The Only Thing That Melted Was Al Gore’s Credibility.
…And Maybe His Beach House Value, But Who’s Counting?
You know how every summer a meteorologist screams “Category 5 apocalypse!” and the biggest storm we end up with is a light drizzle that barely ruins a barbecue?
After the tenth or so false alarm, people stop nailing plywood over their windows, keep hamburgers on the grill, and tune out the sirens.
It’s not denial; it’s pattern recognition. Cry wolf too many times, and eventually the villagers go back to binging Stranger Things.
Twenty years ago, Al Gore famously dropped An Inconvenient Truth like it was the final word from on high. The former vice president and Nobel laureate, and the man who invented the internet (or at least the weather forecasts), promised us the complete end-times package: vanishing polar ice caps, cities submerged underwater faster than you can say “evacuate Florida,” and snow becoming a fairy tale for kids.
Dissent? That was simply “denial,” or the moral equivalent of kicking puppies.
Settled science, folks: pay up or shut up.
Fast-forward two decades and ask yourself, how’d that work out?
