• Your Activism Helped Kill an Anti-Gun Bill

  • Help Stop the Attack on Concealed Carry

  • Your Effort is Grabbing the Attention of Capitol Hill Leaders

  • Will Congressional Republicans Hand Hillary/Obama an Anti-gun Victory?

  • Does Your Representative Support Concealed Carry Reciprocity?

  • Will Some Pro-gun Reps. Try to Kill Constitutional Carry?

  • Should Your Right to Carry End at the State Border?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

GOA News

  • Facebook Discrimination
  • Hillary's Stance May Backfire
  • Protect Constitutional Carry
  • Freedom on the Move
  • Merrick Garland really is anti-gun

On Facebook, critics see long pattern of discrimination


Show Facebook you support GOA - click here to like us on Facebook

"Lots of gun owners have been disappointed with Facebook's policies towards gun rights, and unfortunately, Facebook is alienating a lot of [gun rights] supporters." Erich Pratt said. 


Read More

Hillary Clinton’s fierce anti-gun stance could backfire in general election


 Erich Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, said Mrs. Clinton is out of touch with reality if she thinks she can change those numbers.

“She is crazy if she thinks that advocating Aussie-style gun confiscation is going to help her win in November,” Mr. Pratt said. “Hillary is in for a rude awakening.”


Read More

GOA Urges House to Support Constitutional Carry

Gun Owners of America tells Representatives to resist pressure from the House leadership -- and to give their support to Constitutional Carry reciprocity.

Read More

Gun Owners of America: National Reciprocity Bill Has More Than 80 Cosponsors


Gun owners shouldn’t have to ask for permission to exercise their constitutionally protected rights. And that’s the beauty of HR 923. If it passes, all concealed carriers — even those from permitless carry states — will not have to fear prosecution when traveling with firearms from coast-to-coast.


Read More

The usual gaggle of anti-gun suspects has come out of the woodwork to attack the “gun lobby” for its opposition to any action on behalf of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

Coupled with their typical protestations that their attacks on Second Amendment advocates are not attacks on the Second Amendment itself, their words are laden with half-truths and selectively culled “facts.”

But the truth is simple. Second Amendment issues have come before Garland, at least four times. He voted anti-gun every time.

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • Trigger Finger
  • Not this House
  • Fighting Back
  • Stopping Violence
  • Better Shot

Home Intruder Dead Wrong for Targeting Wheelchair-Bound Veteran

If 22-year-old Andre Smith thought he had found an easy target in 69-year-old Eddie Frank Smith, he was dead wrong.

Read More

Mississippi Homeowner Shoots Alleged Burglar in Driveway

Lee County Mississippi Sheriff Jim Johnson says a local homeowner shot and killed 35-year-old Gary Sneed, Jr. after she caught him inside a vehicle on her driveway.

Read More

Restraining Order Fails To Stop Ex-Boyfriend But Bullets Work

Lexington police confirmed that the man who attempted to invade a woman’s home was subject to a restraining order. By the time they arrived, he was laying out in the front lawn with multiple gun shot wounds. He was evacuated to a nearby hospital in serious condition.

Read More

Concealed Carry Holder Ends Violent Outburst

A concealed carry holder in Texas was forced to make a tough decision Wednesday to end a violent outburst after a man destroyed property and threatened staff.

Read More

Homeowner Better Shot During Gun Fight With Armed Home Invaders

A homeowner proved to be better prepared than the people who invaded his home, leaving one dead and the others fleeing Wednesday night after they broke in and demanded money at gunpoint.

Read More
by
Larry Pratt

Adding insult to injury, Emory History Professor Michael A. Bellesiles, author of the totally discredited book Arming America: The Origins of A National Gun Culture (Knopf, 2000), has been given a $30,000 National Endowment For The Humanities (N.E.H.) grant by the Newberry Library in Chicago. That's right. His scholarship demolished, his reputation shot full of holes, Bellesiles now has his snout thrust deeply into the public trough. And guess what he's doing with this $30,000 worth of your hard-earned Federal tax dollars and mine? He's working on another book about guns! This one is titled American Gun Laws: The Regulation Of Firearm Use, 1607-2000.

But, you may be thinking, as I have been: "How in the world could such an award be given to this individual? Who could possibly justify this expenditure of Federal tax dollars to this person?" Well, it's none of our business, really. Or so we were told when we investigated the awarding of this N.E.H. grant.

In an interview, Jim Grossman, Vice President for Research and Education at the Newberry Library, explains that Bellesiles was given his $30,000 grant by a Review Committee and an Awards Committee. Might we, please, have the names of those on these committees to ask them why they decided to give this person such a grant? No, says Grossman. Might we then, please, see a copy of Bellesiles application for this grant? No, says Grossman, all this information is "confidential."

But, how can this information be kept "confidential" since Bellesiles is being given $30,000 worth of what is called public money? Well, says Grossman, when the Federal Government (that's us) gives them money, "it becomes Newberry funds."

Still, why keep all this requested information secret? Grossman says: "Well, if I'm Joe Smith, and I didn't get a fellowship, and I'm upset about it, I might call a member of the Review Committee to complain." He assures us, however, that the N.E.H., by giving the Newberry Library this money (our money), has trusted them (the Library) to award it in a way "that is fair, honest and rigorous."

But, of course, if the names of those who awarded Bellesiles his Federal grant are kept secret, we can't contact and question them, can we? And, if we can't contact and question those who are giving out our Federal tax dollars, we don't know if they, in fact, did award this grant in a way that was "fair, honest and rigorous," do we? No, we do not.

But, seriously, Grossman is asked: "Why give one of your grants to Bellesiles, whose scholarship and reputation is under a huge black cloud when, presumably, there were many applicants whose work is not in question?"

Grossman: "Our Review Committee, which consists of scholars who are able to assess the work of other scholars, felt comfortable with the quality of his existing work. And most of the judgment is also made on the quality of the proposal itself for the next project."

Is Grossman kidding? This Committee was "comfortable" with the "quality" of Bellesiles' existing work?! How can this possibly be true when Bellesiles' existing work -- specifically on Arming America -- is, to put it mildly, of an extremely poor quality!

All of which raises an interesting question. Before Bellesiles was given his $30,000 grant, did he, in any way, have to respond to any of the devastating criticisms of his book Arming America? Incredibly, Grossman says: "That's not part of our process.... There's no interview in the fellowship process."

Well, excuse me, but any group who has given Michael A. Bellesiles any kind of monetary grant without, first, demanding that he prove that what he wrote in Arming America is true, has not awarded this grant in a way that is "fair, honest and rigorous." No way! The Newberry Library should immediately cancel Bellesiles' little excursion on the Federal Gravy Train. And if this isn't done by the Library, the N.E.H. should do it -- now!

Op-Ed Articles