• 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
  • Obama Strikes Again with a New Gun Ban

  • A Time for Mourning

    -- And then time to end the military gun ban! Read More
  • Obama Using the Charleston Tragedy to Infringe on Your Gun Rights

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

GOA News

  • Guns in 2016
  • Flawed System
  • Carry Deregulation
  • Two Shootings
  • Guns Under Obama

The dark reason why guns are virtually guaranteed to be a major issue of the 2016 campaign

After years of ducking presidential-campaign battles over gun laws out of fear of the powerful gun lobby, it appears that Democrats are finally ready to go on the offensive....

Read More

The entire background check system is flawed
by Erich Pratt appearing in USA Today (July 28, 2015)

 

 

 

 

FBI Director James Comey recently said a flaw in the gun background check system allowed Dylann Roof to purchase the gun he allegedly used to kill nine people in a church in Charleston, S.C.

But the fact is, the entire background check system is flawed. Not only is it unconstitutional — and disarming many law-abiding citizens — it’s failing to keep guns out of criminals’ hands and is not keeping people safe.

Consider Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who used a gun stolen from a federal agent to allegedly kill Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco.

The same is true for Adam Lanza at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and Jacob Tyler Roberts at the Clackamas Mall in Oregon. Background checks failed to stop these killers from stealing their guns and committing atrocities.

If Roof had been denied a gun by a background check, couldn’t he have stolen his weapon, just as Lanza and Roberts did? Couldn’t he have used a fake ID to illegally purchase one?

Read More

Wave of gun carry deregulation sweeps USA

There’s gun rights policy grid-lock in the nation’s capital, where the Administration keeps proposing restrictions on gun rights through executive action, and Congress members primarily introduce pro-gun bills.

Read More

A Tale of Two Shootings, and Why Gun Control is Killing Us

 

In the wake of Thursday night’s Louisiana shooting, the media has made much ado about the President’s “prediction” that law gun control laws would lead to more shootings.

But the reality is that strict gun control laws made Thursday night’s shooting at the Lafayette Grand Theater possible.

While facts are still pouring in, here’s what we already know:

Read More

Gun production has doubled under Obama

Gun production has more than doubled over the course of the Obama administration, according to a new report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • AR-15 v. Pistol
  • 3 out of 5
  • Well Armed Business
  • Clerk Fights Back
  • Good Guy Wins

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: Store Owner Lights up Trio of Armed Robbers with AR-15

Three armed robbers met a store owner armed with an AR-15 and left with gunshot wounds aplenty. And it was all caught on camera.

Read More

70 Year Old Defends His Roommate And His Home From Invasion

According to authorities’ reports passed through KIRO-TV, a 70 year old man successfully fought off a home invader who entered his home and was mercilessly attacking his 65 year old roommate.

Read More

‘WELL ARMED’ CA BUSINESS OWNER RETURNS FIRE, KILLS TWO ALLEGED ROBBERS

On July 18 a “well armed” business owner was shot on the streets of Montebello by two allegedly armed men who wanted his wallet and other valuables. The business owner was able to return fire and kill both men.

Read More

Houston Store Clerk Fights Back, Killing Two Of Three Armed Robbers

The news reporter for this station summed up gun ownership for self-defense in her opening segment; “Those who work here were prepared because they know what it’s like to be victims.”

Well, almost. It’s good to be armed before knowing what it’s like to be a victim, but you get the idea.

Robbed just 12 days earlier, the workers at the Super K store in Houston were prepared for trouble this time around.

When three armed men stormed into the store, they went to the register and pistol-whipped an employee. One of the armed men waited by the door to hold it open. The owner’s brother was on break, but still in the store, when the robbery was happening.

Read More

GOOD GUY WINS: Vietnam Veteran Shoots Armed Robber At Gas Station; “I Just Did What I Had To Do”

A vietnam veteran was out for a typical day, and walked into a gas station to break a $20. His day changed quickly when a young thug came in with a gun.

Read More
by
Larry Pratt

Even though he may be the last human being on earth doing it, it's still not exactly a man-bites-dog story to learn that anti-gun junk-scientist Dr. Arthur Kellermann is defending anti-gun junk-historian Michael A. Bellesiles, author of Arming America: The Origins of A National Gun Culture (Knopf, 2000). If ever birds of the same feather have flocked together, it's these two characters.

When the Atlanta Journal And Constitution newspaper (12/18/01) wrote an editorial noting that Bellesiles "has been accused of shoddy and perhaps fabricated research," Kellermann wrote a letter-to-the-editor (12/27/01) saying "the case against Bellesiles is thin and clearly driven by individuals outraged that his book challenges long-cherished beliefs about guns in early American history." Kellerman, like Bellesiles, works at Emory University where he is Director of the Center for Injury Control and Professor of Emergency Medicine in the Department of Surgery at Emory's School of Medicine.

The evidence against Bellesiles is thin?! That's what the Doc says -- even though, in reality, this evidence is roughly as thick as the Empire State Building is high. And it's growing even higher as you read this.

When interviewed in mid-February, and asked if he still believes the evidence against Bellesiles is "thin", Kellermann says: "I think that there are -- you know, basically, what I said is what I said. But, basically, yes." He adds that anybody, whether an academic or not, "is innocent until proven guilty." Bellesiles, of course, has now been, for all practical purposes, proven guilty. But, Kellermann doesn't get it.

When asked if, for example, he's read James Lindgren's scholarly, detailed and well-documented demolition of Bellesiles' probate record data, Kellermann ignores the question saying only that he does not know Lindgren. He says: "I have enough familiarity with individuals' concerns about issues relating to firearms that I take anybody who goes to great lengths to go after another individual, particularly on the academic front -- I have to have some question about what their motivation is." Lindgren, of course, has been motivated only by a search for truth -- a possibility that seems not to have occurred to Kellermann.

When asked if he read the articles about Bellesiles in the Boston Globe, Kellermann interrupts saying, testily: "Well, I'll tell you what -- I don't use the Boston Globe as my source for a scholarly critique." He admits: "I'm not a historian or an expert in probate records." He says he does believe that Bellesiles has been "roundly assailed," deserves a review, that's where the issue is, and "I'm waiting for the jury."

Kellermann says his "basic thesis" is that Bellesiles has been "summarily judged" by the Atlanta Journal And Constitution newspaper that did not do its own independent assessment. But, Kellermann's focus is much too narrow. Bellesiles has been judged by numerous publications and scholars. Their judgment has been anything but a summary judgment. These critiques have been documented-in-detail. And they have been devastating.

Hmmmmm. Interesting point, this "review" business. And an interesting question. So, Kellermann is asked: So, would Emory really launch an official investigation of Bellesiles' work if the evidence against him is "thin?"

Kellermann: "I think that Emory, given the amount of heat that's been generated over this book, I think that Emory's review -- and, again, my understanding is that it was done at Professor Bellesiles' request."

Right. Like Bellesiles really wanted this investigation so much that he requested it. If Kellermann believes this, then, as the saying goes, we have a bridge in Brooklyn we'd like to sell him. As for the bit about "heat" being generated regarding Arming America, no, Doc, it's the light that's been shed on his shoddy scholarship that has caused this autopsy to be conducted.

At one point, Kellermann, amazingly, says, regarding the critiques of Bellesiles' work: "I suspend judgment one way or another." When reminded that he's said the evidence against Bellesiles is "thin," and this is a judgment, he says: "Okay." But, he's says he's said this based on what he has seen.

Eventually, Kellermann admits he did read the Boston Globe articles. So, what does he think about the Globe reporter discovering that Bellesiles had inserted the words "old" and "broken" into his characterization of certain old gun records in Vermont when these words were not in the original records? Long pause. He says he'd have to go back and re-read these articles. He doesn't remember this.

Finally, Kellermann is asked for some specifics. He said in his letter-to-the-editor that the case against Bellesiles is "clearly driven by individuals outraged that his book challenges long-cherished beliefs about guns in early American history." So, who, exactly, is he talking about?

Kellermann says, ducking the question: "I think there are people very happy to see Dr. Bellesiles trashed."

Q: "Like who?"

A: I don't feel that I have any need to share any particular individual's name."

Kellermann adds, pathetically, that the criticism of Bellesiles is "a cautionary note for anybody who wants to do any kind of work on this issue." But, this is pure, unadulterated hogwash. The criticisms of Bellesiles are "a cautionary note" for anybody who writes a lousy book full of lies and fabricated data!

Op-Ed Articles