• Obama Wants to Tie the UN Noose Even Tighter Around the Necks of Gun Owners

  • Recent Shootings Spur Gun Debate

  • Oppose Obama’s Proposal to Make Information-Sharing on Guns Illegal

    -- Today is the last day for submitting comments Read More
  • Gun Rights Advancing Across the Country!

  • Congress Pushes to Arm Service Members at Military Recruitment Centers

  • Momentum Building for Repealing Gun Free Zones

        Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

GOA News

  • END THE CHECK
  • UN Gun Control
  • CA Gun Takaway
  • GOA Blasts Dems
  • GOA: Abolish Gun Free Zones

GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA: ABOLISH BACKGROUND CHECKS, DESTROY LINKED DATABASE

On August 31, Breitbart News spoke with Gun Owners of America’s (GOA) executive director, Larry Pratt, about background checks for gun purchasers, and he made clear that GOA opposed them when they were first introduced under President Bill Clinton and that GOA believes they should be abolished now.

Pratt also stressed that the database tied to them should be destroyed.

Our conversation began with a discussion of how yet another public attacker, Vester Lee Flanagan, demonstrated the impotency of background checks by passing one to acquire the gun he used to shoot and kill Alison Parker and Adam Ward in Virginia.

Pratt responded by pointing out that public attackers are not the only ones background checks fail to stop. He said, “During the last year of record, although the government has done millions upon million of background checks, they brought 14 prosecutions to court for trial–hardly a crime-fighting tool.” He said some people respond to this by pointing out that there were people who were “denied getting a gun at the point of sale,” but these people fail to note that criminals get guns in ways that completely circumvent the checks.

Read More

UN GUN CONTROL BODY SUPPORTED BY OBAMA SETS UP VETO-PROOF FRAMEWORK

Representatives attending the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in Mexico this week have set up a structure for future conferences on gun control that include a veto-proof decision making process.

According to Reuters, representatives from 130 countries gathered in Mexico, although only 72 countries have fully ratified the treaty. They determined that Geneva will be “the seat of the permanent secretariat for the ATT” and they unanimously decided that unanimous agreements would not have to be reached on gun control decisions going forward.

This gives the body a veto-proof process for making gun control decisions going forward.

Anna McDonald, director of the international gun control group Control Arms, praised the agreed-to decision making process and the role representatives at the conference see for “civic groups.”

On August 23, Breitbart News reported Gun Owners of America’s warning that officials from the Obama administration would be attending the conference, even though the U.S. Senate had not ratified the ATT.

Read More

CA CITY SEIZES WIFE’S GUNS BECAUSE HUSBAND UNDERWENT ‘PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION’

San Jose’s Lori Rodriguez says the city seized her 12 guns after her husband was forced to undergo a “72-hour psychiatric evaluation,” and she is suing the city to get back the guns....

These cases highlight the danger Breitbart News, the NRA, and Gun Owners of America have warned about in instances where domestic violence and other issues are used as a Trojan Horse for gun control. The push is insidious, and once those promoting gun control get their foot in the door, they often simply continue pushing.

Read More

GOA Blasts Anti-gun Democrats as Tyrants who Prefer Their Subjects Unarmed

 

 

 

 



 

On August 20, Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt described the Democratic Party on the federal level as “increasingly” tyrannical and focused on passing laws to take guns away from law-abiding Americans.

Pratt said, “The Democrat Party has increasingly become a party of tyranny. And you can’t be a good tyrant if there are a whole bunch of schlubs running around with guns.”

And Pratt is not wrong. The link between federal-level Democrats and a relentless push for gun control is undeniable. Obama craves it, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) continually push it, and Representatives like Elizabeth Etsy (D-CT-5th) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA-5th) eagerly promote it.

Read More

GOA:  Abolish Gun Free Zones by Hitting Their Creators in the Pocketbook

On August 19 Breitbart News spoke with Gun Owners of America (GOA) executive director Larry Pratt and he described gun free zones as “murder magnets” that must be abolished by hitting their creators where it hurts–“in their bloody pocketbooks.”

GOA has been unflinching in their opposition to gun free zones in schools from the moment Senator Joe Biden (D-Md.) introduced them in 1990. They remain opposed to the current cacophony of “guns allowed” versus “no guns allowed” areas in schools, colleges, and businesses that we see around the country today. This confusing mix presents law-abiding citizens with certain places where self-defense is honored and certain places were law-abiding citizens check their dignity and their ability to defend themselves at the door.

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Two Intruders Down
  • Turn the Other Cheek
  • Father Saves Son
  • Grandma Got Her Gun
  • Intruder Shot

FL man shoots 2 intruders after finding dead dogs in his home

A Florida man returning to his Lantana home last week opened fire on two intruders he found inside, killing one and seriously injuring the other. Now the surviving suspect is charged with murder for the death of his accomplice.

Read More

ALLEGED ROBBER CORNERS FEMALE CLERK, GETS SHOT IN BUTT BY CLERK’S HUSBAND

On August 18, an alleged armed robber who cornered a female clerk was shot in the butt by the clerk’s 75-year-old husband. The husband was sitting feet in away in a chair and unnoticed by the robber until it was too late.

Read More

No charges against Oregon father who fatally shot prowler trying to break into kids’ bedroom

The Josephine County District Attorney announced Aug. 11 that no charges would be filed against an Oregon father who shot and killed a man trying to break into his Grants Pass home last month.

Read More

Elderly Woman Pulls Gun To Thwart Two Men Attempting to Rape Her

An elderly California women thwarted two home invaders with the only practical tool for the job:

Read More

Homeowner Shoots Intruder In Lake Highlands

A Lake Highlands homeowner shot an intruder Tuesday morning.

Read More
McCain's Constitution
by George Will
as seen at Townhall.com

Presidents swear to "protect and defend the Constitution." The Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." On April 28, on Don Imus' radio program, discussing the charge that the McCain-Feingold law abridges freedom of speech by regulating the quantity, content and timing of political speech, John McCain did not really reject the charge:

    I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government.

Question: Were McCain to take the presidential oath, what would he mean?

In his words to Imus, note the obvious disparagement he communicates by putting verbal quotation marks around "First Amendment rights." Those nuisances.

Then ponder his implicit promise to "complete the job" of cleansing Washington of corruption, as McCain understands that. Unfortunately, although McCain is loquacious about corruption, he is too busy deploring it to define it. Mister Straight Talk is rarely reticent about anything, but is remarkably so about specifics: He says corruption is pandemic among incumbent politicians, yet he has never identified any corrupt fellow senator.

Anyway, he vows to "complete the job" of extirpating corruption, regardless of the cost to freedom of speech. Regardless, that is, of how much more the government must supervise political advocacy. President McCain would, it is reasonable to assume, favor increasingly stringent limits on what can be contributed to, or spent by, campaigns. Furthermore, McCain seems to regard unregulated political speech as an inherent invitation to corruption. And he seems to believe that anything done in the name of "leveling the playing field" for political competition is immune from First Amendment challenges.

The logic of his doctrine would cause him to put the power of the presidency behind efforts to clamp government controls on Internet advocacy. This is because the speech regulators' impulse is increasingly untethered from concern with corruption. It is extending to regulation in the name of "fairness." Bob Bauer, a Democratic lawyer, says this about the metastasizing government regulation of campaigns:

    More and more, it is meant to regulate any money with the potential of influencing elections; and so any unregulated but influential money, in whichever way its influence is felt or achieved, is unfair. This explains the hand-wringing horror with which the reform community approached the Internet's fast-growing use and limitless potential.

This is why the banner of "campaign reform" is no longer waved only by insurgents from outside the political establishment. Washington's most powerful people carry the banner: Led by Speaker Dennis Hastert, and with the president's approval, the Republican-controlled House recently voted to cripple the ability of citizens' groups called 527s (named after the provision of the tax code under which they are organized) to conduct independent advocacy that Washington's ruling class considers "unfair."

Which highlights the stark contradiction in McCain's doctrine and the media's applause of it. He and they assume, simultaneously, the following two propositions:

Proof that incumbent politicians are highly susceptible to corruption is the fact that the government they control is shot through with it. Yet that government should be regarded as a disinterested arbiter, untainted by politics and therefore qualified to regulate the content, quantity and timing of speech in campaigns that determine who controls the government. In the language of McCain's Imus appearance, the government is very much not "clean," but is so clean it can be trusted to regulate speech about itself.

McCain hopes that in 2008 pro-life Republicans will remember his pro-life record. But they will know that, regarding presidents and abortion, what matters are Supreme Court nominees. McCain favors judges who think the Constitution is so radically elastic that government regulation of speech about itself is compatible with the First Amendment. So Republican primary voters will wonder: Can President McCain be counted on to nominate justices who would correct such constitutional elasticities as the court's discovery of a virtually unlimited right -- one unnoticed between 1787 and 1973 -- to abortion?

McCain told Imus that he would, if necessary, sacrifice "quote First Amendment rights" to achieve "clean" government. If on Jan. 20, 2009, he were to swear to defend the Constitution, would he be thinking that the oath refers only to "the quote Constitution"? And what would that mean?

--------
George F. Will is a 1976 Pulitzer Prize winner, whose columns are syndicated in more than 400 magazines and newspapers worldwide.

Op-Ed Articles