• GOA Case Goes Before the U.S. Supreme Court

    -- While on the political scene, GOA exposing lying politicians Read More
  • GOA Countering the Anti-gun Left’s New Strategy

    -- Plus, GOA publishes its 2014 Voter Guide   Read More
  • Does the Obama Administration Consider YOU a Terrorist?

    Plus, it’s payback time for gun owners; get the GOA Voter Guide! Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Legislative Action Center LINK

facebook_icon twitter_icon youtube_icon

GOA News

  • Attention!
  • Not British
  • Executive Order
  • Amnesty
  • CO Governor

Attention Gun Owner:  
Your Government Considers You to Be a Potential Terrorist

Gun Owners of America
Report to the American People Concerning

Government Agencies Viewing Gun Owners as Potential Terrorists

For the past decade, GOA has been tracking and exposing efforts across the country by the federal government and various state governments to cast suspicion on law-abiding gun owners.

Read More

Britain Shows Again Why We Are No Longer British

There are a few private gun owners left in England.  What they have to endure shows once again why Americans are no longer British.

To get a gun in England, the burden of proof is on the citizen.  And, no, self-defense is not one of the accepted reasons for wanting to buy a gun.  It doesn’t really matter, because guns have to be kept locked in a safe so they will not be available for self-defense.

Read More

Obama Executive Order Boosts Protections for Employees of Gun Owners’ Least Favorite Agency

President Barack Obama issued an executive order Friday to provide added protections to employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, one of the most scandal-plagued agencies in the federal government in recent years.

The order allows more ATF agents to be converted to the career-employee classification, which would provide civil service protections that make it more difficult to fire such an employee. For an agency that has been accused of going rogue at times, with Operation Fast and Furious and more recently Fearless Distribution, that could be a problem.

Read More

Most gun rights activists, groups remain silent on amnesty threat to gun rights 

Why is Gun Owners of America still the only gun group speaking out on the danger to gun owners?

“Immigration reform could be a bonanza for Democrats [and] cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily," GOA quoted Politico in a 2013 alert to its members. “We predict that ... California-style gun control could become a very real possibility in this country!”

Read More

Anti-gun measures could cost CO governor his office

A gun-rights organization is excited about the possibility that Colorado's Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, could be headed to defeat this November.alt

In 2013 Hickenlooper signed strict anti-gun legislation that severely limits the size of ammunition magazines and imposes intrusive background checks on gun buyers.

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • NC Grandpa
  • Pharmacy
  • CA Woman
  • 11 Year Old
  • Ohio Shootout

Gun-Toting Grandpa Defends Wife, Granddaughter From Rapists In NC Home Invasion

A North Carolina man exchanged fire with three home invaders after they tried to rob his house and rape his granddaughter, reports the Fayetteville Observer.

At his Lumberton home on Monday, Kenneth Byrd, 67, was approached by an individual claiming to have car problems. When Byrd invited the man into his home, he was rushed by two additional assailants wearing black clothes and ski masks.

Read More

Sheriff Praises Pharmacy Employee For Shooting Armed Robbery Suspect

An armed employee at Family Pharmacy in Taney County, Missouri didn’t waste any time when an armed robber burst into the business, waving a gun around and demanding pills.

The armed employee drew his own gun and opened fire on the suspect, striking him once.

After being shot, the suspect was much less inclined to continue the robbery and fled the business.

Read More

California Woman Had Gun Held to Her Head by Armed Robber, but She Has a Surprise…

TURLOCK, CALIFORNIA – A California woman who had a gun held to her head by an armed robber remained calm and realized that she had to get her gun.

The woman told the suspect that her valuables were stored in a safe. When she went to open it she didn’t pull out money or jewelry, she pulled out a handgun that was stored in the safe.

Once the armed robber realized he was now facing an armed victim he turned and fled the residence without further incident.

Read More

11 Year Old Girl Shoots Man Who Attacked and Stabbed Her Mother, Saves Her Life

Heroes come in all sizes and all ages, as illustrated by this story. An 11 year old girl in Oklahoma has certainly earned that title after her brave actions to defend her mother yesterday.

After a violent ex-boyfriend came to Brandy Moreno’s home (who she had a protective order against), he attacked and stabbed her. Fortunately, her 11 year old daughter knew just what to do. According to The Oklahoman,

Read More

[Video] Store Clerk Shoots and Kills 2 of 3 Armed Robbers in Gunfight

A Marathon gas station clerk in Canton, Ohio found himself in a gunfight with three armed robbers last night.

Despite the odds being stacked against him, it was the would be robbers that ended up on the losing end of the fight.

The clerk struck two of the suspects. All three suspects were able to flee the scene, but the two suspects who were shot were found nearby and taken to an area hospital, where they both died.

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