• 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
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

GOA News

  • Flawed System
  • Two Shootings
  • Guns Under Obama
  • Larry Pratt
  • Utter Failure

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

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

GOA's Larry Pratt is the Second Most Powerful Gun Rights Activist
-- The 100 most influential pro-gun rights advocates

Newsmax is out with our list of 2015's 100 Most Influential Pro-Gun Rights Advocates.

Read More

Leading gun-rights group calls background checks ‘utter failure’

That Dylann Roof was able to purchase a firearm despite a drug arrest comes as evidence that background checks have been an “utter failure,” says a leading gun-rights group.

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

The Organization of American Historians and the National Council on Public History met jointly recently in Washington DC for their annual meeting. So, it was with great interest that we went page-by-page through the 194-page program for this event.

Certainly, we thought, there would be a panel that would discuss, in some way, the controversy involving Emory Prof. Michael A. Bellesiles' book Arming America, one of the greatest -- perhaps the greatest -- publishing frauds in American history.

But, alas, this widely-publicized scandal was not on the radar of either the OAH or the NCPH. Nothing was listed about it in their program -- nada, zip, zero, zilch.

Now, this conspicuous omission is, to put it charitably, odd. And it is particularly odd considering some of the topics that were discussed at this get-together of historians. For example, there were panels on such subjects as: "The American Man: Changing Conceptions of Masculinity;" "The Black Panther Party In Historical Perspective;" "Fluid Bodies: Motherhood, Sexuality, And Metaphorical Readings Of The Body From The Gilded Age To The 1970s"; "Reconsidering The Histories Of Women Of Color: Past And Future;" "Politics To Pedagogy: Incorporating Radical And Women's History Into Classroom Praxis;" "Interpreting Sexuality At Historic House Museums;" and "State-Of-The-Art: Multicultural Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, And Queer Histories."

So, what's the story here? Why all the attention to the aforementioned esoteric, downright weird topics, but no attention paid at all to Bellesiles and his wretched book? Seeking an answer to this question, we spoke with John Dichtl, Deputy Executive Director of the Organization of American Historians. Here's what he told us:

"In general, the annual meeting is not used as a venue for topics that are considered in the news right now." Instead, the annual meeting is "really a reflection of the scholarship going on out there."

OK. Great. So, since the scandal swirling around Bellesiles and his book involves, in part, "scholarship going on out there," specifically what has been proven to be Bellesiles' shoddy scholarship, why not have a panel on this topic?

Well, Dichtl says the meeting program is planned two years in advance. Papers and topics are submitted to the Program Committee but this Committee does not solicit or put together its own topics. So, the program for the meeting was "probably set six months or a year ago." Serious criticism of Bellesiles' book has, of course, been going on for almost two years now.

When pressed, however, Dichtl says he is not saying it would have been impossible to empanel a discussion of Arming America. He says this could have been done. He also admits "we're a little slow in reacting to things."

In another interview, we ask the same question of Michigan State University History Professor Darlene Clark Hine, the outgoing President of the OAH. Why completely ignore Bellesiles, his book and all the scholarship that has thoroughly discredited it? She, too, says the Program Committee finishes its work a year in advance of their annual convention. Besides, she adds, the OAH Newsletter devoted a cover story to this whole issue. "So, we covered it," she says.

But, with all due respect, this assertion is absurd. In his reply in the OAH Newsletter (November, 2001), Bellesiles' response was, as usual, pathetic, answered nothing really and gave his critics even more ammunition to blow additional holes in the tattered remains of his incompetent scholarship. To say that what the OAH Newsletter printed "covered" this story is ludicrous.

Other panels at the OAH and NCPH meeting were on these topics: "Historians As Public Intellectuals;" "Larger Than Life: Confronting Popular Images Of Nineteenth-Century Americans;" "History Under Fire: Scholars, The Public, And The Memory Of The Civil War;" and "Pages From History: Teaching With Primary Sources." Some mention of Bellesiles and "Arming America" could have been a part of any of these discussion groups.

What we have here, in my judgment, is obvious. It's a cover-up plain and simple. Two of the major American history organizations have chosen to ignore what is arguably the hottest topic about U.S. history in modern times. This is a disgrace and they should be ashamed.

The longer these groups continue the Bellesiles cover-up, the more they impugn the integrity of their members.

Op-Ed Articles