Sign up to receive Alan's newsletter by email.

Speaking engagements

  • Invite Alan Korwin to speak at your event! Thought-provoking, entertaining, freedom-oriented topics -- your guests will thank you for the excitement -- long after the applause ends!


Business Booms, Media Silent

Bigotry makes them feel shame, Americans feel pride

The lamestream media told you:

One industry grew, one shrank, the stock market blah blah... The results of an economic study by some industry trade group somewhere shows that things are good, things are bad, things are. Media typically reports on changes and events in business, because business is good, we all need work.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Virtually unreported in the lamestream, despite its undivided firearm attention for weeks on a single act of unspeakable horror by a psychotic maniac, the firearms industry is in good health and growing. In other news, ethnic murders in inner cities remained stable at about 6,000 per year, with no trials reported, if any, on national news. Police issued no statements.

310,000 jobs

The total economic impact of the firearms and ammunition industry in the United States increased from $19.1 billion in 2008 to $51.4 billion in 2017, a 169 percent increase, while the total number of full-time equivalent jobs rose from approximately 166,000 to almost 310,000, an 87 percent increase in that period, according to the annual report released this week by NSSF. On a year-over-year basis, the industry’s economic impact rose from $51.3 billion in 2016 to $51.4 in 2017, ticking higher even while the industry came off peak production years.

Wikipedia Censors “Gun Rights”

References to gun rights are redirected to politics

Propaganda is now "Wikiganda"

The lamestream media told you:


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Thanks to the observant work of an internet-presence guru, we now know you can’t find “Gun Rights” on Wikipedia.

It’s as if such a thing doesn’t exist. Internal references to "gun rights" are redirected, some very recently, indicating this is an ongoing effort.

Admittedly, there is a bizarre argument that guns don’t have rights, only people have rights, but that is specious here. As a term of art, “gun rights” accounts for limitations in the English language, everyone gets that. "Gun rights" is a synonym for the right to keep and bear arms, and everything that encompasses, along with a dozen other ways of expressing the same thing.

For Wikipedia, gun rights is “gun politics.” These are not the same of course. Look up politics, look up rights, that case rests on its own.

Even worse than the blatant censorship of "gun rights" is the fact that Wikipedia is doing it. What else has fallen under this censorship axe?

The web guru observes: “Just read the ‘gun politics’ page and look how it presents a unique perspective on guns, gun rights, and so-called "gun control," all in the name of gun politics.

"For example, here's the last paragraph in the opening of the 'gun politics history' section:

"Closely related to the militia tradition is the frontier tradition, with the need for self-protection pursuant to westward expansion and the extension of the American frontier. Though it has not been a necessary part of daily survival for over a century, ‘generations of Americans continued to embrace and glorify it as a living inheritance -- as a permanent ingredient of this nation's style and culture’.”

By redirecting a reference to “gun rights” to a slanted “gun politics” opinion piece, the so-called "gun-control" side is working within Wikipedia to promote the gun-confiscation agenda. One of its latest strategies is this redirect. It is an extremely clever Orwellian methodology.

In another maneuver, even though the opening line describing the Second Amendment Foundation retains the censored phrase "gun rights" and says the group supports gun rights, (it would not work to say they support gun politics, indicating this is not an automated global replacement) someone recently (Feb. 13, 2018) redirected (hijacked) the "gun rights" link and redirected it to "gun politics," as if SAF supports gun politics, as Wiki describes it. The Wiki history architecture captures the deed:


NOTE: What Wikipedia has done in these cases is link the organization’s statements about defense of gun rights to a blurb and pages about gun politics. The idea of a civil and human right to firearms, is absent. The fundamental civil and human right to arms that the American people possess is now missing in the descriptions. No page for Gun Rights exists at Wikipedia. The "world’s encyclopedia," now coincidentally managed by a left-leaning cabal of techno-oligrarchs, is starting to show its treachery. See for yourself:


They have all had their "gun rights" references redirected to "Gun politics" -- The Uninvited Ombudsman is now looking into developing an entry on "Gun Rights" for publication in Wikipedia, and will be working with the nation's leading experts on this important task.

How to Ban the AR-15

The lamestream media told you:

Many times over: No one needs an AR-15. All we want to do is ban the AR-15. It’s a weapon of war. It’s a killing machine. It has no place on our streets. The Founders never could have imagined any such thing in the hands of the public. It’s too dangerous for the public to own. The magazine is too large. The bullets can be fired too quickly. It’s scary looking. You don’t need it to hunt ducks. It doesn’t matter if police have them.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Having listed those familiar complaints, I’ll answer them just as fast: Property ownership in this country isn’t based on need (and you don’t get to decide someone else’s need, that’s the communist model). All we want is to have the finest rifle made. It’s a weapon of peace. It’s a self-defense firearm. It’s perfect for the public. The Founders never could have imagined throwing your voice further than you can speak either. It’s too dangerous for the government to be sole owners. Insufficient ammo supply can be lethal. Slow-firing guns are dangerous. Scary is in the eye of the beholder, you might need treatment. Preferences for hunting are personal, immaterial here, not your concern and disconnected from the right to keep and bear arms. Police have them for the exact same reasons we want them. OK, so much for that.

Banning the AR-15, America’s Rifle, as media-promoted child “survivors” are trying to force upon this great nation, is not only a bad idea, it’s illegal -- infringement -- and as a practical matter, it’s hard.

You can’t ban guns by name, people will just change the name, that doesn’t work. You can describe guns, but people just modify the designs so they don’t fit the description. That’s been tried, it was a failure.

There’s too many manufacturers, that cat’s out of the bag, along with the engineering plans, so you can’t close down the plants. If you do somehow outlaw manufacture what do you do about the millions of guns people own?

Confiscation is the answer, among the most heinous government crimes there are, illegal a dozen different ways, and incendiary to the public. The rule of law has to be abandoned for that one. When government doesn't or can't enforce the law, the militia gets called up.

Buying the guns back, an idea sometimes mentioned, runs up against the treasury hasn’t got the funds, and no votes in favor. Buying from unwilling sellers is confiscation again, disguised with ribbon and bow.

All of the drastic ideas like this tempt armed rebellion, literally, from the very people whose guns you want to take, so you must tread lightly there. Will police and soldiers shoot at Americans defending their firearms? Do you really want to push things that far? That’s not much of a plan.

Note, all the bans so far haven’t disarmed inner cities, where murderers murder 6,000 victims a year, with virtually no murder trials. Guns get smuggled into this country like drugs, women and “undocumented migrant workers and repeat offenders,” so that side of an AR-15 ban is not exactly airtight.

So what did they (that’s the democrat party, the one with no demonstrated respect for the right to keep and bear arms) do to ban the AR-15, when they drafted their bill? The bill the marching children, referred to as ignorant useful idiots by some leading experts, what did that bill propose?

They banned every rifle, pistol and shotgun that takes a magazine of any size, and has a grip.

Most but not all pistols will escape the law under the “two-grip” rule. In the past though, BATFE, the agency responsible for enforcing these things, has been known to fabricate their own parts to “prove” a firearm was subject to enforcement.

The AR-15 Ban, edited for pertinent part:
(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
(i) A pistol grip.
(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following: (ii) A second pistol grip.
(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following:
(ii) A pistol grip.
(39) The term ‘detachable magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed from a firearm without disassembly of the firearm action.*
(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
*Editor’s note: Any capacity magazine is included.

It’s safe to say every mass media report on the move to ban the AR-15, or assault weapons, has been fake, phony or wrong, based on the bill.

"Red Flag" Laws Reduce Safety

Identify and enrage people ready to kill. Then set them loose?

Take their guns, but leave them everything else, and free.

What crazy victim feels safer like that?

The lamestream media told you:

USA Today Editorial, a few positive points: Red-flag laws let police confiscate guns without due process. Suspending the Constitution in a secret hearing is a point from which there is no return.

To listen to the media's anti-rights drumbeat, no one does -- or could -- oppose the concept of stripping Americans of their constitutional rights in secret proceedings where they have no voice.

But this is exactly what is at stake with Gun Confiscation Orders -- cynically disguised as "red flag laws."

Six states have enacted these laws. At their core, they allow the police to convene a Kafkaesque secret proceeding, in which an American can be stripped of gun rights and Fourth Amendment rights, even though gun owners are barred from participating in the hearings or arguing their side of the dispute. --Michael Hammond, opinion writer, USA Today

Support from the “news” section:

Red Flag Laws Gain Momentum In States -- USA Today, Washington -- States across the country are taking a closer look at “red flag” laws... The laws allow family members or law enforcement to seek a court order to temporarily restrict people's access to firearms when they show "red flags" that they are a danger to themselves or others.

Florida became the sixth state to pass a red-flag law, and other state lawmakers introduced a flurry of new bills, including first-time legislation in more than a handful of states, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group. Bills are now pending in 22 states and the District of Columbia, while bipartisan efforts are coming together in Congress ... getting more attention now as students protest legislative inaction on gun violence... “those bills across the country are taking on renewed significance... What can we do to make sure this doesn’t happen here?” according to a gun-control spokesperson.

Though supporters say the bills can prevent tragedies, critics say they have the potential to deprive gun owners of due process and their Second Amendment rights.

“gun violence restraining order” or “extreme risk protection order” to temporarily restrict a person’s access to firearms. The judge can issue an emergency, temporary order -- without the gun owner being present -- to prevent immediate danger. But a full hearing must be scheduled quickly, offering the gun owner the ability to respond.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


Little more than another left-wing expression of gun fear,
and a typically dangerous, reckless, negligent idea.

“A person too dangerous to touch guns
is too dangerous to be walking around.”

The only reason this law is being floated is to provide another avenue for the anti-rights advocates to restrict gun possession. And to quiet the tantrum being thrown by children nationally. It is not a rational approach to a problem that already has solutions available, and unused.

People who want guns to “just go away,” irrationally believing this red-flagging power will somehow increase safety. They see this type of law as a saving grace, when in fact it does harm. By identifying seriously dangerous individuals and setting these ticking time bombs free it is actually counterproductive.

Continue reading ""Red Flag" Laws Reduce Safety" »

Anti-Rights Groups "Out" Themselves

It was always about taking guns away

The lamestream media told you:

The Brady Center, Everytown, Action Moms, Bloomberg -- none of these forces aligned on the left, each seeking more and better common-sense gun control, have any intention or plan to take away anyone’s guns. We’ve been telling you this over and over, why don’t you believe us.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Oregon has just introduced Initiative 43 (was I-42) which if passed would require government confiscation of personally owned guns, without compensation, under penalty of felony arrest and conviction.

Current owners could turn them in, destroy them, get them out of the state or sell them before the brief deadline to avoid arrest. Being caught with one without state police registration would be a felony.

The law is flawed on so many levels it’s hard to imagine it will withstand court challenge, but some the liberal courts in that neck of the woods are challenged themselves. The very thought that such a proposal could see the light of day is shocking in an American society, proving the rule of law no longer holds sway with a significant portion of the public. Infringement, outlawing firearms legally owned by American citizens, is prohibited by the Constitution.

This ploy comes from the left, a cadre calling itself the interfaith religious group. Misguided angry pacifists have long been a force to be reckoned with. For contrast, imagine giving credence to some similarly unconstitutional petition, like gathering signatures to ban printing an unpopular version of the Bible. It simply would not be tolerated here. Or didn’t used to be.

Banning firearms and accessories people already legally own is infringement by definition, and constitutionally banned. (It’s also ex post facto, strictly banned, and property confiscation, strictly banned.) Attempting to take away an infringed item from its rightful owner is aggravated infringement, felony behavior. Now there’s a petition the people of Oregon ought to float.

The group has until July 6 to get 88,000 valid signatures to put the measure on the ballot. With the flood of expensive publicity being provided free by the “news” media, it’s probably an attainable goal, according to leading experts.

The ban and confiscation covers any semi-auto pistol, rifle or shotgun, with a removable magazine if it can take more than ten rounds, and has a grip (that’s what it says). These would all be named “assault weapons.” The magazines are banned too. Everything becomes contraband.

NRA Is The Devil! -- Or Maybe Not.

Training Must Come From Somewhere

The lamestream media told you:

The NRA is the devil, evil incarnate, the standard whipping boy for any mass murderer’s actions, death to the NRA, man it just doesn’t stop, attack attack attack.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The socialist left and the lamestream media seems totally unaware that the main gun-safety training association in the country, make that on planet Earth, is the NRA.

Congrats to NRA experts on a tremendous plan for the schools -- the left would have to show blatant hypocrisy and self-defeating behavior to turn this down. Schools need this, it can only help. The left may be inclined to fight it, solely because of its eminently qualified source, which would be an utter and dangerous shame. I'll be promoting it, for all the right reasons.

The National School Shield program seeks to identify and apply “best practices in security infrastructure, technology, personnel, training, and policy. Through this multidimensional effort, National School Shield® seeks to engage communities and empower leaders to help make our schools more secure.”

It includes a “comprehensive vulnerability assessment. These assessments provide an all-inclusive approach to analyzing a school’s climate, physical security, communications systems, and overall preparedness.”

The program doesn’t take place in a vacuum. It “seeks to facilitate a partnership between schools and local stakeholders in a shared commitment to more secure schools.”

These guys get to have all the machineguns they want.
The whole purpose of the Second Amendment is BALANCE OF POWER.
Has America lost sight of this crucial principle?
We lost this balance in 1986.

It Makes Sense the Left Is Using Children

Why should anyone be surprised?

Darling little kids are motivational, it’s all that matters

The lamestream media told you:

[Quote some “news” story about one of the children being bandied around as a news commentator, hogging spotlight. Actually, quote several, now known as survivors, which describes anyone at school that day, according to leading experts. Use the well-spoken one, the one from drama class, who says he can’t act (cue laughter). Too many people don’t know he was a drama student. He’s really good on live TV.]

“It should not be harder for me to get this girl in fourth period to call me back than it is to get an AR-15,” Cameron Kasky told Time Wednesday. This is how a drama teenager speaks?

The teenager doesn’t seem aware that if your rights are intact and you’re not disqualified for good reason, of course you can exercise your rights. The reporter didn’t ask.

Why the fourth period girl won’t call him back was also left unanswered, though leading experts believe that may be due to his personality, and may change after the national exposure. She may have avoided him for other good reason, but this was unknown at press time (“news” technique for planting spurious ideas in readers’ minds).

Time continues: “As the students’ movement gains visibility, they have faced backlash from bots and trolls who spread conspiracy theories about them and accuse them of being ‘crisis actors.’” The report doesn’t support the slur, and says the kids just laugh it off. “You should have seen me in Fiddler on the Roof,” Kasky says. “Who the hell would pay me to act?”

“The labor and socialist movements had youth affiliates going back to the beginning of the century,” according to a history professor quoted in the article, revealing more than perhaps the socialists would prefer, for reasons that were unclear at press time. Hundreds of similar articles have flooded the web, TV and print. Radio has had a tougher time getting these new spokespeople on.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The political left, a polite name for socialists, are using children with no actual credentials to be spokespeople in the gun debate, because progressives are trying to appeal to their base. Using children works, to their side.

It doesn’t matter that the kids are uninformed. This technique pulls at heartstrings. It is motivational. To the “useful idiots” (Vladimir Lenin’s term), people who follow the leader without thinking through on issues will be swayed and motivated by this technique. Of course the left uses children.

The only surprise is that republicans, conservatives (not the same thing), independents, libertarians, nonaligneds, even the reporters and editorialists who can still think and still have a platform, are surprised. What do you expect? The left should use reason, logic, facts? That’s not what they do. That doesn't work on them.

It would be a tactical and strategic error for leftists to do differently. They have to rally their troops. They have to use techniques that work. That’s why CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, USA Today, AP and the rest look the way they do. Journalism per se has been dead for a long while. Note: Human beings, along with “bots and trolls” observed the children were being used by sophisticated propagandists. The kids activities and printing were also being funded with huge sums, estimated to be in the millions, another “astroturf” movement. Countless buses, room and board have been provided to organize the spontaneous marches staged nationwide, as if spontaneously.

Eye witnesses in D.C filmed and reported the uncoordinated youth march was 90% adults. Cash was prepared and stapled together to give to school kid groups for buying lunch. media reports were phony, fake, saturation which itself should tell you something, and balance, there wasn’t any.

The Hill ($5 million spent on free march)

Background on what Millennials really think

GOA Video shows the real marchers (D’oh!) BELOW:

Where are all the kids?

Gloves Are Off—It’s a Gun-Ban Movement

Marchers, Politicians, Media,
No Longer Playing Pretend

But: Infringement Is Illegal

by Alan Korwin

Calls to outlaw guns, gun possession, accessories and similar wild-eyed notions now percolating through a portion of our youth and culture are... illegal.

So called “news” media, involved in whipping up the public and unsuspecting youngsters into a frenzy to ban gun types, gun parts, all guns, and places where people can have guns for all legal purposes -- like defense against murderers -- are an affront to our society and our Constitution. When did teachers lose their right to keep and bear arms exactly? The guarantees of The U.S. Bill of Rights can just be... lost?

People are saying the horrific events of the recent past could never have happened if our rights weren’t somehow squelched in the first place.

Unless you decide to give up on the rule of law, and simply enact anything by mob rule, guns can’t simply be banned, as television is campaigning for. People could begin a new country based on utopian socialist rule with no leadership, no charter, and the will of the people simply expressed day-to-day by vote, that’s conceivable. But America cannot legitimately ban guns already in the public’s hands by passing laws, to appease loud children.

We get that the kids are scared, and should be, they’ve been let down. That doesn’t erase the rule of law.

If stopping crazed, psychotic mass murderers who take it on themselves to spree murder their classmates is the goal, that’s a good goal.

Loud youngsters who think disarming the public will somehow accomplish that goal are not mature enough to understand that first, -- it won’t work, and second, the adults egging them on in the media and politics are manipulative SOBs worse than their worst parents.

Those adults are using what amounts to a national tantrum to accomplish the adults’ goal -- not the children’s goal. The so-called “news” media has disguised or totally hidden this revealing truth. Journalists have become virtually as much an enemy of the nation’s health as the murderers themselves. That’s a hard thing to say, as a journalist myself.

Here’s a secret. Everyone wants to stop sociopathic students from murdering their classmates at school. It shouldn’t be a secret. The hated NRA wants to stop that. Do you really think they’re devils who want their own kids at that kind of risk? If you do, you’ve been sold a bill of goods. Remember the secret -- Everyone wants to stop sociopathic students from murdering their classmates at school.

Here’s the bottom line. Banning a firearm a person already owns is infringement, simply by definition. Doing that is banned in America, it’s why we’re the linchpin of freedom on the planet. It’s why oppressed masses flock here, and always have, though schools no longer teach this. They used to, when America was at its peak.

Attempting to take such a firearm away -- government confiscation of the public’s guns is aggravated infringement, felony-level criminal activity. It is exactly what government cannot legitimately do. It’s where peaceful rule of law ends and tyranny begins: gun-taking. Gun-taking kindles revolts, around the world, and if it goes too far, it could happen here. Disarming the innocent doesn’t set well with the innocent. The reverse is true too -- you can’t arm slaves and expect them to remain slaves.

State by state, we are going to see an effort to put aggravated infringement into statute so offending officials can be charged and imprisoned if they attempt to infringe on this fundamental constitutional right. Banning guns is on the same par as banning gays, blacks, speech, Bibles -- you just can’t do that here.

It doesn’t matter how many votes you can manipulate or cajole with phony logic. “Majority rules, minority protected,” you remember that, right? It means you can’t strip the Bill of Rights with a legislative vote.

People who do so or attempt to do so need to be subject to defined penalties. Like any other civil and human rights violation. We actually have 18 USC §241, and 18 USC §242 for this, they just need some backup, and enforcement (q.v., denial of constitutional or statutory rights is a crime). Read those short, crystalline statutes.

The noise level is rising to a dangerous pitch. Attempting to disarm the public is what has, throughout history, led to either revolution or genocide. Americans want neither. The loud children want neither either, they just don’t know it. They know not what they do, and their handlers are keeping them quietly in the dark.

The Andersons and Wolves are incomprehensibly keeping them ignorant, and maybe they are themselves. I’m reluctant to join my colleagues who see it for an evil agenda, and the markings could easily be read that way. At the least the mass media culprits should lose their licenses to broadcast. Oh, that’s right—they are unlicensed operators.

Banning guns already in the public’s hands is infringement. Attempting to take an infringed item is aggravated infringement. Attempting to take an infringed item is where chilling phrases like, “Bullets first!” and “From my cold dead fingers!” arise. This country does not want to go there. Someone tell the kids.
I have the Infringement Bill model language here somewhere, I’ll get that posted, check back with me.

Permission to circulate this essay granted ###

We need more, better gun laws!

A. It's time to ban the 1,000-foot gun ban at schools.

How much more proof could we possibly need to prove this law is a worthless sham.

The "news" media has been publicizing the failure of the 1,000-foot ban for years. The ban doesn't work. Murderers ignore the ban. For some reason, still a mystery to the political left, the law doesn't stop people from acting out, and in fact murderers are charged with higher crimes than violation of the 1,000-foot rule. Repeal the feckless gun-free-school zones farce.

The Bill-Clinton-era feel-good do-nothing violation of our rights has accomplished exactly nothing but infringe on the innocent. It makes it a crime for the good people reading Page Nine to have their firearms anywhere near a school (1,000 foot barrier) and has zero effect on mass murderers the "news" media parades around after they commit their horrific crimes. Repeal this abomination without delay.

Unenforceable. A joke. A federal crime against the public.
Infringement defined.

B. Teach marksmanship and the link between firearms and liberty in schools.

The public school system has removed certain crucial education from classrooms, so our children are kept hopelessly ignorant of what makes this nation the shining linchpin of freedom on planet Earth. No need to place blame, we all have an understanding of who is at fault. It's time to turn this around with curriculum development, public encouragement, and punishment for censoring or denying the free flow of information in this field to and among students in publicly funded settings.

C. Fix Fix NICS.

The whole idea that the FBI collects the names of tens of millions of innocent Americans, to stop criminals from buying guns at retail, is an idea hatched in a deep dark bad government basement. Instead, the names of the bad guys should be made available to the dealers, like wanted posters, in the far less expensive BIDS system. Short of that, the current Fix NICS plan is a way to send more bad-guy names to the database, using incentives and punishment for the reporting agencies. What's not addressed, the Fix Fix NICS proposal, includes a clean fast cheap way to get off the list if you're one of many false positives (wrongly entered); a way to find out if you're even on, without committing a felony by going into a store to shop; auditing the system and assurance of proper operation; and of course, punishment for improper government use and false listing ("Oh, they would never do that!" Good, then they shouldn't mind including it.).

D. Model Laws.

There are so many, from serious, desperately needed ones at the state and federal level, like an end to frivolous lawsuits by criminals harmed during felonies, to lighter notes for inspiration, like Ammo Stamps for the Indigent, so poor people can practice too.

The Bump Stock Deception

If the infringers get something we should too.
Using tragedy to manipulate infringement is perverse.
Left wingers seek to ban a piece of plastic out of pure frustration.

An open letter to Congress:

Regarding so-called "bump-fire" stocks or "slide-fire stocks" you are currently considering regulating --

1. You have no apparent legitimate delegated authority to regulate these essentially inert plastic/composite firearm accessories.

2. Because a firearm can be fired in "bump-fire" style without these accessories, regulating them is a specious and politically motivated attempt to placate certain elements of the public and political world who do not understand the issue.

3. Pretending to actually "do something," with a move like this, when you are actually doing nothing productive, is a humiliating embarrassment.

4. Regulations here will a) have no effect on psychotic behavior which is the real problem society faces, and b) deliberately masks the true nature of that problem.

5. Your agency should not play into this false narrative or deceptive practice.

6. Arguing that you can't ban other firearms, so you might as well ban these "crumbs" is reprehensible, and should be grounds for your removal from office for infringement.

Author Alan Korwin.

These guys get to have all the machine guns they want. The whole purpose
of the Second Amendment is BALANCE OF POWER. Has America
lost sight of this crucial principle? We lost this balance in 1986.

Read what people are saying about Page Nine, or tell Alan yourself.

See the archives below, or click through to an index of Page Nine posts at

About the Author

  • Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.

Recent Comments

Read the last 100 comments on one handy page here!