Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (4023)	8/21/2000 11:11:19 PM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

Jim and good LP friends from this thread: Forgive my crass commercialism, but please give me you feedback on my website. We need to get our web site hits up!,g> virtualbubba.bizland.com I am not making this up! Thanks Ciao, Daniel

To: Jim S who wrote (4023)	10/10/2000 5:23:13 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13060

Jim- The Oct 9 issue of National Review had an review of a book entitled "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael Bellesiles. Bellsiles advanced the thesis that (from the review) "the idea of a well-armed and self-regulated militia was a delusion: Most Americans were at first indifferent to guns, then positively hostile, and almost no one hunted." Bellesiles thesis is that guns and hunting were scarce in America until just before the Civil War, partly because guns were expensive, and partly for cultural reasons. The NR reviewers think this is poppycock, and they cite de Toqueville's famous quote from an Alabama farmer that "There is no one here but carries arms under his clothes. At the slightest quarrel, knife or pistol comes to hand." They also cite Bayard Rush Hall's memoir "The New Purchase", describing life in Indiana in 1816. Hall offered a detailed account of the importance of hunting for most settlers and describes the use of rifles both by settlers pursuing criminals and by criminals on the lam. I can't say with authority or confidence which of these views is more nearly correct, but I thought the reviewers probably got the better of it (not too surprising: the author was not there to defend his work). So you may well be mostly right on this. I suspect The Atlantic article that I read leaned heavily on the Bellesiles book. Larry

To: Jim S who wrote (4023)	10/24/2001 5:24:28 PM
From: Liatris Spicata	Respond to of 13060

Jim- As my uncle Rip used to say, a good sleep clears the brain. Here is a recent post that I think supports your view- in fact established your case (I haven't fully followed his links). Guess I too uncritically accepted the thesis portrayed in The Atlantic article on which I based my views. Regards, Larry ================================================================= What do you think about the Emory history prof who gathered a Columbia U "Bancroft" prize for excellence and distinction in history for an anti-gun book that now appears to have been substantially fabricated? Both Emory and Columbia are very embarrassed. Seems Emory is now demanding that he defend his work, but the dog "et his research and the records he "used" didn't exist or he altered what they stated. It's all very strange. The WSJ and Boston Globe have given it prominent placement. amazon.com. In the Globe, they recite Garry Wills' unfortunate review: ''Bellesiles has dispersed the darkness that covered the gun's early history in America,'' wrote historian Garry Wills in the New York Times Book Review. ''He provides overwhelming evidence that our view of the gun is as deep a superstition as any that affected Native Americans in the 17th Century.'' Poor Wills, he blew it big time. HUGE. boston.com. And last week, Emory threw its thunderbolt at Bellesiles. At least one Northwestern prof is on the ball. Law prof dismantles book, proves the opposite is true: law.northwestern.edu.