• Keep Up the Pressure on Obama's Anti-gun 'Legacy' Bill

  • The Second Amendment Made a Huge Difference in Iowa

  • Obama Demonstrates Why Background Checks Suck

  • It's Time to Strike Back Against the Empire

  • Help Me Stop Obama's Gun Grab -- Sen. Steve Daines

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

GOA News

  • Run and Hide
  • Unconstitutional Checks
  • Not Surprised
  • #ENDTHECHECK
  • On the Front Lines

Hide in here, Officer, the bad guys are coming!


GOA's Erich Pratt says it's alarming that Chicago police are being instructed to run and hide from danger, despite the fact that they are fully certified officers.  CNN reported that in case of an active shooter, if evacuation is not possible, unarmed aviation police must "run and hide."   

"That is the most stunning advice that you would give to people supposedly there to protect us,” says Pratt.


Read More

Gun Owners of America: FBI Actions Prove Background Checks Unconstitutional


"The whole National Instant Background Check System (NICS) apparatus needs to be defunded. And once the examiners and analysts tied to that apparatus have been on unemployment for a while, perhaps they’ll understand that they need to do their job. And now I’m dreaming, but maybe the Republicans will actually step up and do this." - Larry Pratt


Read More

Whence a Mexican drug lord's guns came doesn't surprise GOA


 Mike Hammond, legislative council to Gun Owners of America (GOA), says this news comes as the ATF is pushing Congress for more money.

"They're demanding massively more money for the instant check system, massively more money for 200 additional ATF agents, and $500 million -- chump change by Washington standards -- so that they can take people who have problems and want to consult a professional and take away their guns from them," Hammond explains.


Read More

We Don’t Need no Stinkin’ Background Checks


The Obama administration was behind the greatest effort to arm criminals in recent history, but they don’t want you to buy a revolver at a gun show unless government officials approve the sale.  


 

Read More

Gun Groups Launch Campaign to Stop Obama's Gun Restrictions

 


“Gun Owners of America is rallying the grassroots in opposition to the president’s unlawful executive actions. Our hope is to produce enough pressure that either the president backs off of his plans to restrict Second Amendment rights — as he did last year when he withdrew the ban on ‘green tip’ ammunition — or we generate so much momentum that the next president is compelled to rescind Obama’s unlawful decrees during the first week in office," Erich Pratt, the group's executive director, told Newsmax.


 

Read More

Self-Defense Corner

  • CCW Wins Again
  • Deputy Saved
  • Gun Beats Knife
  • Guns Save Lives
  • Two for One

New Jersey man, 35, identified in fatal barbershop shootout with CWP holders

A 35-year-old New Jersey man has been identified as the armed robbery suspect who was shot and killed in a shootout during a botched robbery attempt at a Fort Jackson Boulevard barbershop.

Read More

Officials: Gun-toting veteran saves life of Bastrop deputy

Not thinking about his own life, a local Marine veteran jumped into action and stopped a man from reaching a Bastrop deputy’s gun as the suspect pummeled the officer during a struggle earlier this month.

Read More

Woman Shoots Attempted Robber

A man was shot after he allegedly tried to rob a woman in downtown Louisville.

Read More

90-Year-Old Pulls Gun For First Time In His Life On Home Intruder

 A 90-year-old man had the first reason in his life to use his .38 spc revolver when an unknown intruder entered his home and attempted to sleep in a vacant bedroom in his house.  As the Daily Breeze describes it, the home owner awoke to find the man in the vacant bedroom.

Read More

Pair Of Concealed Carriers Thwart Armed Robbers In Barbershop, Saving Lives

Two licensed concealed carry permit holders turned the tables on two armed thugs who barged into a barber shop wearing masks Friday night, demanding money from everyone inside.

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