It may sound hard to believe, but except for a very limited group of personnel, the military has treated its bases as gun-free zones. Until very recently, only designated security forces — such as military police — could carry firearms while on duty.

Commanders punished any other soldier caught carrying a weapon severely, with penalties ranging from rank reduction and forfeiture of pay to court-martial, dishonorable discharge, criminal conviction, and even imprisonment.

Penalties for carrying firearms do not deter attackers. Someone planning to murder fellow soldiers will not stop because of gun laws.

Consider the attacks at Holloman Air Force Base (2026), Fort Stewart (2025), Naval Air Station Pensacola (2019), the Chattanooga recruiting station (2015), both Fort Hood shootings (2014 and 2009), and Navy Yard (2013). Across these attacks, 24 people were murdered and 38 wounded. In each case, unarmed personnel — including JAG officers, Marines, and soldiers — had to hide while the attacker continued firing.

That changed with a statement from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

Before today, it was virtually impossible — most people probably don’t know this — it was virtually impossible for War Department personnel to get permission to carry and store their own personal weapons aligned with the state laws where we operate our installations. I mean, effectively, our bases across the country were gun-free zones unless you’re training or unless you are a military policeman.

When the military deployed U.S. troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, it required them to carry their weapons at all times — even on base. Those soldiers needed to defend themselves against real threats, and there are no known cases of them turning those weapons on each other.

So why make it easier for attackers to target troops at home? Why force soldiers — like those at Fort Stewart — to confront armed attackers with their bare hands?

It wasn’t always this way. In 1992, the George H.W. Bush administration started reshaping the military. That shift led to tighter restrictions on firearms. In 1993, President Clinton rewrote and implemented those restrictions, effectively banning soldiers from carrying personal firearms on base.

If civilians can be trusted to carry firearms, military personnel certainly can. As Hegseth noted, “Uniformed service members are trained at the highest and unwavering standards.”

Penalties for carrying firearms do not deter attackers. Someone planning to murder fellow soldiers will not stop because of gun laws. Most mass attackers expect to die during the assault, so the threat of additional punishment carries no weight. Even if they survive, they already face multiple life sentences or the death penalty.

But those same rules weigh heavily on law-abiding soldiers. A soldier who carries a firearm for self-defense risks becoming a felon and destroying his or her future. These policies disarm the innocent while signaling to a determined attacker that no one else will be armed.

Military police guard base entrances, but like civilian police, they cannot be everywhere. Military bases function like cities, and MPs face the same limitations as police responding to mass shootings off base.

Uniformed officers are easy to identify, and that gives attackers a real tactical advantage. Attackers can wait for an officer to leave the area or move on to another target — either choice reduces the chance that an officer will be present to stop the attack. And if the attacker strikes anyway, whom do you think they target first?

RELATED: My friend survived the Global War on Terror. Leftist immigration policies got him killed.

Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Research shows that civilians with concealed handgun permits are more likely to stop active shooting attacks. By contrast, although police stop fewer attacks, attackers kill them at much higher rates.

After the second Fort Hood terrorist attack, General Mark Milley — then commander of Thirds Corps at that base — testified to Congress: “We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond. … Those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead.”

But those eight minutes proved far too long for the three soldiers who were murdered and the 12 others who were wounded.

Time after time, murderers exploit regulations that guarantee they will face no armed resistance. Diaries and manifestos of mass public shooters show a chilling trend: They deliberately choose gun-free zones, knowing their victims can’t fight back.

It’s no coincidence that 93% of mass public shootings happen in places where guns are banned.

Ironically, soldiers with a concealed handgun permit can carry a concealed handgun whenever they are off base so that they can protect themselves and others. But on the base, they and their fellow soldiers had been defenseless. Fortunately, that has now changed.

Allowing trained service members to carry on base restores a basic ability to defend themselves and others when seconds matter most. Policies that disarm the very people we trust in combat do not enhance safety — they leave our troops unnecessarily vulnerable where they should be most secure.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

​Pete hegseth, American soldiers, 2a, Military bases, Right to carry, Self defense, Mass shooting, Holloman air force base, Fort hood attack, Opinion & analysis 

An 18-year-old Indiana teenager was found with hundreds of illegal photos and videos on his devices, and prosecutors say he targeted children across the country.

The investigation into the child sex abuse allegations began after the Hamilton County Internet Crime Against Children Task Force was tipped off about Carson Springer of Fishers allegedly recording himself having sex with another juvenile.

Police found hundreds of videos and photos in Springer’s possession and identified victims as far away as Texas and Kansas.

Springer was 17 years old at the time the investigation began. Investigators obtained a search warrant and discovered more evidence of child abuse on Springer’s Snapchat account.

When they searched Springer’s phone, investigators found evidence that he was requesting child sex abuse material through the Telegram app.

Prosecutors say that Springer was creating child sex abuse material by recording himself having intercourse with other juveniles.

Police found hundreds of videos and photos in Springer’s possession and identified victims as far away as Texas and Kansas. Prosecutors said for three victims, Springer created AI-generated nude images.

While the crimes were allegedly committed when Springer was a juvenile, prosecutors released details of the case because he has been charged as an adult.

The suspect allegedly said he preferred children between 13 and 15 years old, but his devices also reportedly contained material with prepubescent children.

He was arrested on Jan. 16 on charges of possession of child pornography and child exploitation, according to Fishers police.

Emily Perry with Susie’s Place Child Advocacy Centers told WTHR-TV that parents need to closely monitor their children’s use of social media.

“More and more young people are becoming perpetrators of crimes against other children using online tools,” Perry said. “We really need to also be teaching parents about how to have those conversations with their youth about how to use those applications responsibly so that they’re not perpetrating those crimes on their peers.”

RELATED: ‘Got to find a 5th or 6th grader’: Son of Catholic school teacher arrested for alleged child porn had images of students

Fishers Police Lt. Doug Baker said what steps parents should take if they find child sex abuse material on their children’s devices.

“Don’t be afraid to report it,” he said. “Don’t delete stuff off the child’s phone. Block the suspect, block the other person who’s making the problem with your child, that’s fine, but keep everything on the device.”

Springer will face a jury trial in September.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Indiana teen child sex abuse, Online predators, Child sex abuse material, Social media sex predators, Crime 

Brittni De La Mora spent seven years in the adult film industry before walking away for good in December 2012. A profound encounter with Jesus on an airplane — while flying to film what would become her final scene — gave her the strength and conviction to leave permanently and fully embrace her Christian faith.

Today, she and her husband, Pastor Richard De La Mora, co-lead Love Always Ministries and direct Jesus Loves Porn Stars, two outreach-focused ministries dedicated to helping people break free from pornography addiction and reaching those still working in the adult entertainment industry with the gospel.

On a recent episode of “Relatable,” Allie Beth Stuckey invited Brittni to share her amazing story — including the first time she realized that the porn industry was so much darker than just producing adult films.

Brittni was just 18 years old when she became an adult film star. Her success was immediate — but not necessarily because of talent. It was her age that made her so marketable.

“When I first started off in the industry, the reason why I was getting booked so much is because I was 18 years old, and I looked like a little girl,” she says.

“They would put me in pigtails and costume jewelry and schoolgirl outfits and have me say, ‘Oh, I’m barely 18.”’

It wasn’t long before “a light flickered” on in Brittni’s mind.

“I was like, ‘Do you guys realize this is encouraging pedophilia?”’ she recounts, noting that she immediately went to her agent and demanded that she not be booked for these kinds of shoots anymore.

Now that Brittni is on the other side of the industry and helping others escape, she sees the full sinister picture.

“Now that I’m out, I see that pornography really is a drug,” she says. “It releases so much dopamine in your brain, and eventually what you watch on porn does not fill you anymore, and so now you have to go re-enact those things in real life.”

But there comes a day when even re-enactment fails to satisfy. The addiction then begins to demand novelty.

“It starts off by hiring escorts, and then that’s not enough. And then people are doing things to children,” says Brittni.

“I truly blame pornography for [pedophilia] because what they’re watching, they’re feeding their soul — and then they start craving that because eventually it’s just not enough anymore.”

Brittni recounts watching a documentary of a man who was caught with “6,000 images of child pornography.”

“He started off watching the ‘morally acceptable’ scenes — the husband and wife — and then started watching the young teenage 18- year-old with the old man. And eventually that wasn’t enough,” she says.

To hear Brittni’s full story — from her tumultuous childhood and her entrance into the adult film industry to her Christian conversion and eventual exit from pornography — watch the episode above.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Relatable with allie beth stuckey, Relatable, Allie beth stuckey, Blazetv, Pornography industry, Pornography addiction, Brittni de la mora, Adult film industry, Blaze media, Pedophilia 

The 2026 New York International Auto Show — which runs through this weekend — made one thing clear: There is a widening gap between what the auto industry is celebrating and what consumers are actually looking to buy.

Affordability has emerged as the dominant factor shaping purchasing decisions — far more than design awards, performance credentials, or cutting-edge features.

Some automakers are exploring ways to bring down costs without stripping vehicles down to bare-bones models.

What buyers really want

The show also serves as the stage for the World Car of the Year awards, where I serve as a juror.

This year, a survey of more than 100 jurors reinforced what we’re already seeing in the market: Consumers are prioritizing affordability above all else, along with flexibility in powertrain options — gasoline, hybrid, and electric.

That may not sound surprising. But it highlights a disconnect.

Many of the vehicles being recognized at the highest levels of the industry don’t necessarily align with what buyers are actively seeking in dealerships.

Award winners vs. market reality

This year’s top honors went to the BMW iX3, selected from 58 global contenders. It is expected to be built in South Carolina and made available to U.S. customers. The iX3 also took the electric category, featuring a redesigned cockpit with an integrated head-up display.

Other winners included the Mazda 6e for design, the Lucid Gravity for luxury, and the Hyundai Ioniq 6 N for performance. The urban category went to the Nio Firefly, a model not expected to be sold in the United States.

These vehicles represent innovation and engineering progress. But they also highlight the gap between industry recognition and everyday affordability.

Show and sell

Beyond the awards, NYIAS marked a return to traditional vehicle unveilings after several years of automakers favoring private events.

Brands used the show to showcase new concepts and production models aimed at capturing attention across multiple segments.

Hyundai revealed a rugged, Bronco-inspired concept that reflects a broader multi-powertrain strategy. Genesis introduced updated luxury trims and performance-oriented concepts. Volkswagen unveiled a redesigned 2027 Atlas, expected to be built in Chattanooga.

Other reveals included a higher-performance Z model from Nissan, a redesigned Seltos and entry-level EV from Kia, and a new dual-motor electric model from Subaru. Ford Motor Company also highlighted a special-edition Expedition marking the model’s 30th anniversary.

Across the show floor, automakers leaned heavily into design differentiation — illuminated logos, special editions, and expanded trim levels — all aimed at standing out in a crowded market.

The price isn’t right

The biggest issue hanging over the show wasn’t design or technology — it was price.

Average transaction prices for new vehicles are now above $50,000. That reality is reshaping how consumers shop and what they’re willing to consider.

Automakers are starting to respond. Some are exploring ways to bring down costs without stripping vehicles down to bare-bones models, focusing instead on value — delivering features that matter while cutting excess.

‘No’ to tech overload

Another noticeable trend is a growing pushback against excessive in-vehicle technology.

While advanced features remain available, some buyers are moving toward simpler interiors and relying more on smartphone integration rather than built-in systems.

Subscription-based features are also facing increased scrutiny. Consumers are becoming more aware of long-term ownership costs — and less willing to pay ongoing fees for features they feel should be included upfront.

RELATED: How government and Big Tech can wreck your new car’s resale value

Denver Post/Getty Images

EVs take a back seat

Electrification remains a major focus, but the tone is shifting.

Automakers are no longer presenting EVs as the only path forward. Instead, they’re balancing electric investments with hybrids and traditional gasoline options to better match real-world demand.

That flexibility is increasingly important to buyers who want options — not mandates.

Robo-stopped

Autonomous vehicle technology continues to develop, but widespread adoption remains limited.

While robotaxi services are expanding in select urban areas, challenges around safety, liability, and real-world performance continue to slow broader rollout.

For most consumers, fully autonomous driving is still a future concept — not a current buying factor.

For dealers and automakers alike, the message from this year’s show is clear: consumers are focused on affordability, flexibility, and simplicity.

Innovation still matters — but only when it aligns with what buyers can realistically afford and actually want to use.

Right now, the industry is still catching up to that reality.

​New york auto show, World car of the year awards, Lifestyle, Consumer news, Auto industry, Ev mandate, Volkswagen, Bmw, Made in america, Align cars 

The suspect in the fatal shooting of a California sheriff’s detective Thursday was himself killed amid a standoff — and a local sheriff unapologetically spelled out what went down for reporters and the public.

“We intentionally ran him over. … You shoot at cops, we’re going to run you over,” Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux said Thursday, KSEE-TV reported. “He got run over; he got what he deserved.”

‘This situation went from a civil order of removal to where our officer was shot and killed. This is senseless.’

“The suspect was lying prone on the ground, in camouflage clothing, continuing to pose a threat,” Boudreaux said later during a news conference, according to Fox News. “The situation was resolved, and the suspect is now dead.”

Boudreaux said in a Thursday evening news conference that a BearCat armored vehicle operated by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office ran over the suspect — 59-year-old David Morales — following an hours-long standoff, KSEE said.

“He was not shot,” Boudreaux said of Morales, Fox News noted. “One of the BearCats ran over him and killed him.”

The incident began when an eviction notice served at a home in Porterville escalated into a shooting, KSEE said. Porterville is about an hour north of Bakersfield.

RELATED: Father whose son was killed in police shooting is accused of murdering recently retired sheriff’s deputy the very next day

The Tulare County Sheriff’s Office said the incident began when sheriff’s office officials arrived at a home in the 1700 block of West Brian Avenue around 10:20 a.m. to serve an eviction notice, the station said.

With that, an individual inside the residence began shooting at the officers who served the notice, KSEE noted.

Sheriff Boudreaux told the station that Porterville Police knew about Morales and that he had been renting the property.

However, KSEE noted that Morales had stopped paying rent, which prompted the eviction notice visit.

“This is not normal. This is not what reasonable people do,” Boudreaux said, according to the station.

“This situation went from a civil order of removal to where our officer was shot and killed. This is senseless,” Boudreaux said, according to Fox News.

A witness to the shooting showed the station a 10-second video during which 12 gunshots were heard and at least four officers were taking cover behind a parked car, KSEE noted.

Boudreaux said the detective who was fatally shot in the standoff was a father with a pregnant wife, the station said, adding that the detective was shot in the head.

The detective was pronounced dead at 11:57 a.m. at Sierra View Medical Center in Porterville, KSEE said.

Sheriff Boudreaux identified the fatally shot detective as 35-year-old Randy Hoppert, a six-year veteran of the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office.

Hoppert was a Navy corpsman who served from 2010 to 2015 and joined the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office in January 2020, Boudreaux said, according to Fox News.

“Sheriff Boudreaux, and all of us at the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office, are shocked and deeply saddened by today’s tragic events,” the sheriff’s office said. “We ask that you keep our deputy’s grieving family in your prayers.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​California, Tulare county sheriff’s office, Detective fatally shot, Suspect killed, Deputy randy hoppert, Sheriff mike boudreaux, Standoff, Porterville, Crime