• 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

  • Hillary Wants to Ban Guns
  • Gun Owners Punished
  • SCOTUS & 2A in 2016
  • Facebook Discrimination
  • Hillary's Stance May Backfire

Hillary Does Want to Ban Guns No Matter What “Politifact” Says

In response to presidential candidate Donald Trump's NRA speech on Friday, the too-clever-by-half Clinton campaign produced an admittedly confused "Venn diagram" suggesting that Americans hate guns, now comes "Politifact" to "inform" us that, in the opinion of the leftist media, Hillary Clinton would not "abolish" the Second Amendment.

Don't believe that.

Read More

How the Anti-Gun Sentencing Bill Punishes Gun Owners

 

Gun Owners of America reported recently that gun owners’ activism has resulted in the death of the anti-gun sentencing bill (S. 2123 in the Senate and H.R. 3713 in the House).

But a number of our members have expressed confusion over how it is that we reached our conclusions with respect to the anti-gun provisions of the sentencing bill (S. 2123 in the Senate and H.R. 3713 in the House).  

We concede that it is pretty easy to get confused if you're not thoroughly conversant with federal gun law.  

But here is why those bills are anti-gun. 

Read More

Supreme Court, Gun Rights Top Concerns in 2016 Elections

 The 2016 election season is the wildest in recent memory, and there’s still a long way to go until November.

After the Indiana primary in May, real estate mogul Donald Trump became the Republican presumptive nominee, wresting control from an establishment class that for years has ignored the pleas of rank-and-file voters to rein in the federal government. 

Read More

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

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

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