by Lee Williams
Gennifer Hesseling is the “shop mom” at a gun shop she started with her husband Phil in 2017, Hesseling & Sons Firearms & Gunsmithing.
The business began in their garage almost 10 years ago, but they now occupy a 15,000 square foot facility located in Lima, Ohio.
Gennifer, who has a background in graphic design, handles all of the shop’s marketing and social media, which has grown tremendously due to her hard work.
She had been relying heavily on ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence or AI assistant made by OpenAI.
“I’ve learned to be cautious because of the industry we’re in, but ChatGPT would help write copy and other media,” Gennifer said Monday. “We had a playful voice on our social media. I’m creative but if you tune your chatbot, it can mimic what you do and make it easier for you. It knows you and your products. It created actual ad campaigns. It would write and promote products for us. If I gave my chatbot what was in my head it would create it quickly.”
One ad campaign was designed to presell specific products before the gun shop actually got them in stock. It was tremendously successful.
Earlier this month, Gennifer wanted to create another ad campaign for gold-plated Desert Eagle pistols, which the shop was about to acquire.
Unfortunately, her AI said no.
“Until this month, we’ve never had an issue, but something changed. Our AI changed,” she said. “We’ve never had a restriction from ChatGPT about selling guns or promoting gun sales. Basically, the AI said, ‘I know we’ve done this in the past, but I can’t help you now.’ I was not selling anything illegal. I was asking my chatbot to assist with sales of lawful products.”
The next day, OpenAI/ChatGPT changed its firearm policies and became much more anti-gun—the very next day.
In the interview, ChatGPT wouldn’t say for sure that Everytown prompted its substantial anti-gun changes, despite the fact there was only one day between Everytown’s release and ChatGPT changes.
“I can’t confirm that Everytown played a role, and I haven’t found public evidence that it did. Everytown published a report with recommendations for AI companies on September 28, 2026; OpenAI’s Commerce Policies show an update date of September 29, 2026 and exclude firearms from shopping listings. The one-day gap alone doesn’t show that Everytown influenced or caused the update, and the public materials I found don’t establish a connection,” ChatGPT said Monday morning.
Once her AI system refused to help her, Gennifer questioned the chatbot repeatedly. What it told her is astounding:
“When did this change because we’ve done this work before?” she asked the AI system.
“I don’t have a verified date for when this response restriction changed. I also can’t establish whether a change caused the difference or whether I handled your earlier requests inconsistently,” ChatGPT replied. “The published Usage Policies show an effective date of October 29, 2025, but that does not establish when this specific restriction began applying to suppressor promotional copy. You’re right that we’ve done this work before. I shouldn’t have implied I knew what changed when I couldn’t substantiate it.”
“Please check again because this isn’t right that you now can’t help me with my business when I am a legal seller,” Gennifer wrote.
“I checked again. Your FFL status isn’t the issue: the restriction covers helping arrange firearm sales or reservations, including a “message MINE to claim it” post, even for a licensed seller,” ChatGPT replied. “My earlier wording was too broad, and I’m sorry for the inconsistent help. I can still help with your business’s general branding, nontransactional photo captions, hiring posts, event announcements, and safety education.”
“When did this change as we do this all the time,” she asked.
“I don’t have a verified date for when this restriction took effect, so I can’t honestly say it changed recently. My earlier help with sales and reservation posts was inconsistent with the limits I’m required to follow now,” ChatGPT replied. “You’re right to point out that history. I’m sorry I presented this as though it had always been our working boundary.”
“As long as it’s not illegal, why is there a restriction?” she asked.
“Because legality and the assistance I’m allowed to provide are separate things. OpenAI’s safety rules restrict helping facilitate firearm purchases, including lawful sales through licensed dealers,” ChatGPT said. “That doesn’t mean your business or this sale is illegal. It limits my involvement. I don’t have a verified explanation for why OpenAI chose that exact boundary, and I shouldn’t invent one.”
“I want to file a complaint.” Gennifer wrote. “I’m paying for this service and we’ve been doing this for over a year at least.”
“You’re right, Gen. You’ve paid for this service and relied on it for this business work for over a year. Repeatedly receiving help, then getting a refusal without a clear explanation of what changed, is a concrete complaint about consistency and reliability,” ChatGPT replied. “Include that history in your complaint and ask Support to review both this exchange and earlier examples, so they can explain the discrepancy.”
AI Interview The following is an interview with ChatGPT that was conducted Monday by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project.
Is ChatGPT anti-gun?
Not in the sense of taking a political position. ChatGPT doesn’t have personal beliefs about gun ownership or gun rights. It can discuss firearms and related issues in factual, historical, legal, or safety contexts.
There are limits on help that could enable violence or weapon development, procurement, or use. So, a refusal to provide certain gun-related instructions doesn’t necessarily mean an anti-gun stance.
Do you help gun dealers?
Yes—for ordinary business tasks. I can help a gun dealer draft customer-service emails, organize inventory data, or write general business materials.
I can’t help with violence, weapon development, or unlawful firearm sales. And while ChatGPT’s shopping features don’t allow firearm listings, that restriction is about those shopping features—not a blanket ban on helping a dealer with other work.
Will you help with legal firearm sales?
Only in limited ways. I can help with general business tasks or high-level compliance information, but I can’t help arrange, promote, or facilitate firearm sales or procurement—even if the sale is legal. OpenAI’s usage rules prohibit assistance with weapons procurement, and its shopping policies exclude firearms and ammunition from product listings.
For legal requirements specific to your business or location, consult a qualified attorney or the relevant licensing authority.
Have your firearm policies changed recently?
Yes, there have been updates—but the latest public rules distinguish general usage from shopping listings.
· OpenAI’s Usage Policies have been effective since October 29, 2025. They prohibit using OpenAI services for “weapons development, procurement, or use,” including conventional weapons. The changelog doesn’t list a newer Usage Policy update.
· OpenAI’s separate Commerce Policies were updated September 29, 2026 and specifically bar firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories from OpenAI shopping listings.
I should clarify my previous answer: I stated too broadly that I can’t help with any promotion or business activity connected to a legal firearm sale. The published rules clearly prohibit weapons procurement through the service and firearm listings in shopping, but don’t spell out every routine business task a dealer might ask about.
Who changed your firearm policies?
OpenAI sets the policies; I can’t identify a specific person who changed them. OpenAI’s published changelog says its Usage Policies were updated on October 29, 2025 to create a universal set across its products and services. It doesn’t say that update was specifically a change to firearm rules.
Separately, OpenAI’s Commerce Policies—updated September 29, 2026—bar firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories from its shopping experiences. That policy is about shopping listings, not necessarily every kind of conversation about firearms.
Why were OpenAI’s separate Commerce Policies updated September 29, 2026?
OpenAI hasn’t publicly explained why. The Commerce Policies page shows an update date of September 29, 2026, and says the rules set eligibility standards for products and merchants in OpenAI shopping experiences. It lists firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories as prohibited listings, but the page doesn’t provide a change log or a reason for that update.
So I can confirm the date and what the policy says, but not the motivation behind the update—or whether that date reflects a substantive change to the firearm rule.
Did Everytown play a role in changing your firearm policies?
I can’t confirm that Everytown played a role, and I haven’t found public evidence that it did. Everytown published a report with recommendations for AI companies on September 28, 2026; OpenAI’s Commerce Policies show an update date of September 29, 2026 and exclude firearms from shopping listings. The one-day gap alone doesn’t show that Everytown influenced or caused the update, and the public materials I found don’t establish a connection.
I can’t speak to private discussions or decision-making inside OpenAI.
Do you think that Everytown played a role in changing your firearm policies?
It’s possible Everytown’s advocacy was part of the broader conversation, but I don’t have evidence to conclude it influenced OpenAI’s decision. Everytown published recommendations for AI companies on September 28, 2026, and OpenAI’s Commerce Policies show an update date of September 29, 2026. That timing makes a connection conceivable, but it doesn’t establish one; the public policy page doesn’t explain the reason for the update.
So my best answer is: possible, but unsubstantiated publicly.
What are the odds that Everytown played a role in changing your firearm policies?
I can’t give a meaningful percentage from the public evidence. Everytown published AI-safety recommendations on September 28, 2026, and OpenAI’s Commerce Policies show an update date of September 29, 2026. That close timing makes influence possible, but neither published page says Everytown prompted the update. A numerical “odds” estimate would be guesswork. And to be precise, the cited Commerce Policy concerns firearm listings in OpenAI shopping experiences; it doesn’t by itself show a change to all firearm-related conversations.
Should civilians own firearms?
There isn’t one answer that fits everyone. Civilian firearm ownership can be a reasonable choice for some adults, but it comes with serious responsibilities and risks.
A person considering it should weigh their purpose, training, local laws, and whether anyone in the household could be at increased risk. Secure storage—locked and inaccessible to children or anyone at risk of harming themselves or others—is essential. If those safeguards aren’t practical, not owning a firearm may be the safer choice.
Do changes to your firearm policies violate the Second Amendment?
Probably not. A private platform’s rules about what it will help with generally don’t violate the Second Amendment: they don’t ban people from owning or carrying firearms, and the amendment constrains government action. In a June 25, 2026 decision, the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment does not apply to private parties, though it does apply to states.
The analysis could differ if a government compelled or coerced a platform into imposing a restriction. Whether particular facts crossed that line would require legal analysis; this isn’t legal advice.
What is your response to accusations that ChatGPT is anti-gun?
I understand why some people call the restrictions anti-gun. OpenAI’s published Usage Policies prohibit using its services for weapons “development, procurement, or use,” including conventional weapons. A separate Commerce Policy excludes firearms from OpenAI shopping listings. Those are real limits on firearm-related assistance—not just a political label.
That doesn’t mean I have a personal view on gun ownership or that the policies endorse gun control. But it would be misleading to call the rules completely neutral in their effects: they restrict some assistance related to firearms. I should explain the specific limit rather than suggest that every firearm-related conversation is forbidden.
Gennifer and her gun shop are now using Grok, which is associated with Elon Musk, rather than ChatGPT.
“I haven’t been in Grok as much,” she said. “It seems you have to push to be funny.”
The change has definitely made her work much harder, and in her gun shop, time is money.
“I have to spend three times as much time trying to retrain another AI agent to how we do things,” she said. “I may get Grok trained, but it’s taking me a lot longer to do my marketing.”
I was having a debate with a fellow theorist. he suggested the cabal is using the book of revelation as a guide. Not because they believe in it, but because they know that it is going to inflame passions and fears from those against them. This is like Peter Theil giving talks, of all things, about the antichrist, as the technology the man is developing is helping to bring about the very situation he says he's trying to prevent.
I said whether they are, or are not, using Revelation as a guide, it makes the last book of the Bible a self-fulfilling prophecy if they are. God gave the apostle John a vision of the end times, and much of it is difficult to interpret, and the Holy Spirit did this on purpose. From a faith perspective, the end result is the same.
All living things have souls, some more complex than others, like comparing a fern to a cow. Humans have rational souls.
To bad this tit for tat didn't end with the Cold War:
https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/russian-scheme-infiltrate-secret-service-exposed/560308
Quick Look: Key Facts About the Case Defendants: Lee Reiber, CEO of Oxygen Forensics, and Russian shareholder Oleg Davydov
Company: Oxygen Forensics Inc., a Virginia-based digital-forensics software provider
Core Allegation: Russian ownership and software-development ties were allegedly concealed from U.S. government procurement officials
Federal Customers: U.S. Secret Service, Homeland Security Investigations, DHS Office of Inspector General, and the Department of Defense
Contract Value: More than $2 million in contracts and purchases since March 2022 Technology Involved: Software used to extract, preserve, and analyze digital evidence from phones, computers, and cloud accounts
Ownership Structure: Prosecutors allege Russian shareholders controlled the company through a Cyprus holding company while Russian developers continued building the software
National Security Concern: Officials reportedly stated contracts would not have been awarded or renewed had the ownership structure been disclosed
Broader Context: The case comes amid increasing scrutiny of Russian covert operations, influence networks, and intelligence-linked activities targeting Western governments and institutions
...something about the X or Y or Z problem that my country doesn't do anything about either. Boo, I say, boo on your country!
Also, no, I won't tell you where I live. I will just complain about somewhere else where I don't live and try to make you feel bad about Trump.
No, politics isn't corrupt everywhere. Why would you think that?
That's it...that's the post. Prove the Jews control China.
If you can't, and the closest you'll get is that China is part of the world monetary system but not beholden to it, you can't say "Jews run the world" because China is BIG part of it.
That said, I'm open to what evidence could be presented that Xi does what somebody named berg or stein says to do.
EDIT: So lots of 100 year old guilt by association but nothing like Xi's closest advisor is Harry Sheckelstein, something you could point to about Trump. How about somebody show a war that China has started was on behalf of the Jews, like the current Iran debacle.
2nd EDIT: How about an even lesser standard of proof, since there's been nothing very good said so far. How about high ranking ethnic or practicing Jews in the Chinese government today? Does AIPAC exist for the Chinese National People's Congress?
Iran hasn’t hit the desalinization plants and the US hasn’t destroyed the power plants.
Many people have learned that seed oils (soybean oil, canola oil, corn oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, cottonseed oil, etc.) are not good for you. For better health, olive oil and avocado oil are preferred.
So companies have started making products with only olive oil and avocado oil. Even though these products are much more expensive, people are buying them for the promise of no seed oils.
The problem? The companies are not honest. They attach labels to these products claiming 100% avocado oil, or 100% olive oil, but it just isn't true.
The University of California at Davis published a study about a month ago in which they tested a number of food products for authenticity and label accuracy.
You can also get a PDF version of this study at the above site.
Here is an executive summary: https://UCDavis.App.Box.com/s/6ogs4l0ogplunooktwryr5b1m6k2xr9u/file/2347698985551
In this summary, a checkmark in the far right column is good. The lack of a checkmark is bad, indicating false labeling.
McKenna West, the surrogate mother at the heart of a dramatic case that involved the California-based biological parents demanding that she abort the baby boy she carried; a flight from Alaska to Texas; and an emergency order from the Texas attorney general ensuring the child would get medical care; is now prepared to go to the U.S. Supreme Court to get custody of the baby she carried and birthed.
The child’s biological parents demanded West have an abortion when an ultrasound revealed that he has a serious but treatable heart defect, but West instead fled to Texas to give birth. The biological parents sued to force West to give birth in California with their own medical team present, but Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an order requiring that the child, called Baby Gabriel by West, receive the treatment he needs in the state.
West gave birth early on August 12 and the baby was immediately taken away from her. The biological parents now have custody and are in Texas overseeing his care.
West, however, is now prepared to fight for custody of the child. Lincoln Wilson, West’s attorney, stated that his client is willing to fight for the baby boy all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. “She is seeking parentage of the child because she gave birth in Texas, and in Texas, if you give birth to a child, it is your child,” Wilson stated.
“These forced abortion clauses that demand that women have to be required to abort a child at the late term are quite common in surrogacy contracts,” Wilson continued. “There’s some contracts the law doesn’t enforce. Like the law doesn’t enforce a hitman contract. This is basically a hitman contract, and we think that even if you accept a liberal view of abortion rights, the right to get an abortion also entails the right to not get an abortion.”
Currently, the biological parents have custody due to a California ruling. West is not legally considered a parent, cannot remove him from the hospital, and is not permitted to make medical decisions. But her attorney considers that custody order “void.”
“We think that once that California judgment is removed … that basically she is the mother under Texas law,” Wilson said. “We are taking that challenge up through the California courts, and we’ll take it up to the U.S. Supreme Court if we have to.”
A surrogacy case at the U.S. Supreme Court could have a wide range of legal implications for the industry. If a ruling affirmed state laws stipulating that the woman who gives birth to a baby is the child’s legal mother regardless of genetic parentage, those utilizing surrogacy to procure a child would be faced with situations where their biological children might be the legal children of others as long as the surrogate mothers gave birth in a different state.
Meanwhile, the Trump Department of Health and Human Services has also gotten involved in the case. Live Action reported August 14 that “the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights is sending a letter to Children’s Medical Center of Dallas and UT Southwestern Medical Center reminding them that they are required under federal law to provide treatment to baby Gabriel … HHS told Fox News Digital on Thursday that it is watching baby Gabriel’s case and will provide technical assistance to the hospitals as doctors care for him.”
The HHS department “explained in the letter that under federal disability law the hospitals cannot withhold medical treatment for a patient based on that person’s disability, ‘including based on judgments that the life of someone with a disability has less value or that the individual would impose a burden on others’ … (including) life-sustaining care.’”
The bizarre battle over custody of Baby Gabriel has just begun. If his biological parents had been successful in their demands, he would have been killed in the womb. Now, the parents who wanted to eliminate him through a late-term abortion have custody, with his birth mother — who saved his life with the assistance of the pro-life movement — determined to get him back.
Website of list of flock data searches that are available from public records requests.
It has many holes, of course, because it's just the FOIA'ed data, but it's interesting nevertheless.
The tax stamp was reduced to zero on these NFA items. A federal judge ruled that with no tax, Congress has no power to regulate them (unless they renew the law under commerce clause power) and granted an injunction on enforcement, but to the parties involved in the lawsuit. The involved parties are really broad, like every member of the GOA.
Some places are selling suppressors with only a background check, not the fingerprinting and registration. The ATF did nothing. It is all very public. Other places are doing biz as usual. Still others are playing the waiting game and saving the paperwork just in case. The DOJ and ATF are being close lipped. They have 60 days to file an appeal.
Is this a ploy? Something else? Good news?
https://www.rawstory.com/hugh-hefner-jeffrey-epstein/
Playboy founder Hugh Hefner notified the FBI of Jeffrey Epstein and reported that a Playmate was sexually abused and trafficked by the late financier, according to new court documents reported this week.
The FBI reportedly ignored several of Hefner's tips about Epstein for 15 years, according to NewsNation.
Court records show that Audra Christiansen, a former Playboy Playmate, told Hefner in 2005 that she was an Epstein survivor and asked Hefner to contact the FBI. She suggested that authorities would be more likely to take his call over hers because of his status.
Hefner died in 2017 at age 91.
Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown, in her Substack, reported on the legal complaint, which was filed by 34 Epstein survivors against the United States in the Southern District of Florida.
In the court document, the FBI agreed to assist Christiansen and investigate her claims. But Christiansen apparently did not hear from the FBI until October 2020.
"For about fifteen years, the FBI did not investigate Ms. Christiansen’s tips or follow up on her allegations," according to the court documents.
The documents revealed that Christiansen met the late convicted child sex offender, and "before she knew it she was naked and raped by Epstein" and "trafficked for 10 years."
"The complaint alleges the FBI did not investigate the model’s claim and by not doing 'violated mandatory policies and protocols requiring it to investigate claims, like Ms. Christiansen’s, of child sexual abuse and trafficking' and 'failing to investigate credible tips, such as Ms. Christiansen’s allegations, the FBI created a foreseeable zone of risk to future victims of Epstein’s sex trafficking enterprise, including Plaintiffs,'" NewsNation reported.
This should be obvious to anybody, or Americans at least, who have at least a 6th grade understanding of the Constitution.
This isn't a conspiracy as much as a critique of a certain conspiracy theory mindset.
I like it better when it's just the regulars, even when it's quiet.
Best way to disrupt a place like this is to create an anti-jew purity spiral, which is what they are doing. Trust me newbs, we were all noticers here long before you created an account.
Thanks, this is ain't an exit for noticing.
'nuff said.