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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (31813)	10/11/2001 7:36:28 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

>>Zoltan quoting from The Boston Globe? Will wonders never cease... I chose them because of their Liberal bent. NR and the WSJ were there way before the Globe. NR, September 2000: Professor Bellesiles of Emory University has provided a novel work in his Arming America. It is novel in both senses: much of it is certainly "new," and much of it is highly imaginative fiction. The book discards many long-cherished myths of early America about violence, guns, and the militia, and in doing so Bellesiles presents some astonishing revisionist perspectives on early America that will startle most Americans. Many historians will probably react to the claims in Arming America in the same way that I did: first intrigued, then amazed, then perplexed, and finally, infuriated..... nationalreview.com January 2000: NRO Weekend, January 13-14, 2001 Check the Footnotes Skip Bellesiles. Read Halbrook. By Dave Kopel and Clayton Cramer Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876, by Stephen P. Halbrook (Praeger, 1998, 248 pp., $57.75) The big story in this year’s scholarship of the Second Amendment has been the publication of Michael Bellesiles’ highly-publicized Arming America, which claims that early Americans didn’t like guns and rarely owned them. But as scholars study Arming America closely — by actually checking out the footnotes — they are finding that the book is one of the most audacious hoaxes since David Irving re-invented holocaust history. Many of Bellesiles’ sources simply do not say what he claims, and a good number directly contradict his thesis, leaving one hungry for scholarly rebuttle.... nationalreview.com and recently nationalreview.com The Bellesiles scandal was there well before and dwarfs Ellis. Yet somehow Columbia gave him the award well after his book's defects were known.