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: Liatris Spicata who wrote (4321)	10/10/2000 5:42:37 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

Thanks for the post, Larry. I think it only makes sense that a poor, poorly educated, and very rural population would take personal protection and food very seriously. It defies logic (mine, anyway <g>) that anyone who had to depend on their own resources would not use the necessary tools. I would think that people of the time would sooner lose an ax than their firearm. In England at the time, only nobility could bear arms, either guns or swords, and it was a point of considerable contention to the undertrodden. There is a fair comparison as to the rationale for those rules to today's anti-gun environment -- the danger from the criminal element. The nobility thought that only they (and the police and military of course) had the courage and common sense commensurate with the responsibility of bearing arms. Or, so they said. Sound familiar? jim

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (4321)	10/10/2001 6:01:27 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13060

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