Posted on 10/30/2002 2:56:27 PM PST by knighthawk
WASHINGTON - By a strange coincidence, the Washington snipers were caught in the very same weekend that Professor Michael Bellesiles was forced to resign his professorship at Emory University. You may wonder: What's coincidental about that?
Here's what. For many Americans, the sniper shootings proved the need for tighter gun laws. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the Democratic candidate for governor of Maryland, the state most terrorized by the snipers, reminds audiences at every appearance that her father and uncle, Senator Robert Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy, died of bullet wounds -- and she blasts her opponent, Republican Robert Ehrlich, as the "candidate of the NRA."
For many of those same anti-gun Americans, Michael Bellesiles was for a time an intellectual hero. Bellesiles is the author of Arming America: The Origin of a National Gun Culture, which won the Bancroft prize in 2001 -- the highest honour that can be bestowed on an academic work of history.
Arming America purported to be a close study of gun ownership in 18th-century America. Bellesiles cited thousands of old probate records to contend that private gun ownership in America was extremely rare before the Civil War. Those few guns that did exist, he argued, were mostly the property of state governments, which lent them out to members of the local militia.
This may seem like an obscure point of history, but if true, it would have immense implications for American gun law. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the gun rights amendment, reads in full as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Since the 1960s, a fierce argument has raged over the meaning of those words. According to the pro-gun forces, the business end of the amendment is the second half -- the guarantee of the right to bear arms. The first half of the sentence, the militia bit, is merely an explanation of the right contained in the second half.
According to the anti-gun people, however, it is the militia half of the sentence that matters. The Second Amendment, they say, guarantees the rights of gun ownership only to the extent necessary to maintain a "well-regulated militia."
Bellesiles' research gave strong support to the anti-gun point of view. As The Boston Globe said in a laudatory review of Arming America, "If, contrary to the familiar image of the sturdy yeoman with his trusty flintlock, few Americans had actually owned guns, it could be, as some gun-control advocates argue, that the amendment was never meant to apply to individuals."
But before gun-controllers could begin citing Arming America in their legal briefs, scholars and journalists began noticing something odd: In case after case, the archives Bellesiles claims to have used either did not exist or did not show what he said they showed. He cited wills from Providence, Rhode Island, that later proved never to have existed. He claimed that wills from Vermont described guns as broken or damaged when they did no such thing. He claimed to have done most of his research at a federal archive in Georgia -- even though that archive contained no probate records at all.
In the most spectacular case, Bellesiles claimed to have read hundreds of wills from the 1850s stored in the San Francisco Superior Court. When challenged on this last point by Melissa Seckora, a reporter for the American magazine National Review, Bellesiles mused, "Did I say San Francisco Superior Court? I can't remember exactly. I'm working off a dim memory. Now, if I remember correctly, the Mormon Church's Family Research Library has these records. You can try the Sutro Library, too." In fact, neither library possesses copies of the records Bellesiles claims to have used, for the good reason that they were all destroyed in the Great Fire of 1906.
As his book unravelled, Bellesiles fired off one excuse after another. He claimed that his research notes had been destroyed in an office flood -- even though other professors on the same floor of his building reported only the most minor damage. He claimed that inaccurate data on his personal Web site had actually been placed there by a hostile hacker. He claimed that his critics were motivated by ideology and personal hostility.
And the more excuses Bellesiles made for his hundreds of missing documents, the harder and harder it became for his academic supporters to deny that this was a case that went beyond carelessness or even bias. Embarrassed, Emory University requested an independent investigation by a panel of historians. The panel released its report on Friday. It concluded: "[T]he best that can be said ... is that [Bellesiles] is guilty of unprofessional and misleading work. Every aspect of his work in the probate records is deeply flawed ... [H]is scholarly integrity is seriously in question." Bellesiles resigned his position that same day.
From the start, Bellesiles' assertions were highly implausible. No guns in 18th-century America? Nobody who has looked at an 18th-century painting or read an 18th-century book could believe it. How could such an assertion get past a publisher or the Bancroft prize-givers? We know the answer. They believed it because they wanted to believe. The ideological bias of the modern university can blind academics to the truth as utterly as ever did the theological biases of the past. They could not have been so easily lead astray had they not first shut their eyes.
DFrum@aei.org
And according to the Founding Fathers.
Good find! My comment was historical rather than linguistic but I'll take them both!
King George III knew he couldn't possibly enforce an arms ban in the colonies, though he did contemplate it. He figured he could enforce a ban on militias and decreed such. The language of the 2nd amendment simply reflects this.
Good find! My comment was historical rather than linguistic but I'll take them both!
King George III knew he couldn't possibly enforce an arms ban in the colonies, though he did contemplate it. He figured he could enforce a ban on militias and decreed such. The language of the 2nd amendment simply reflects this.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience proves it.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's to late!
I find this most interesting. Also, for the communist lurkers out there - undoubtedly you think you will be safe in the war that ensues if and when your minions ever come for our guns. Quite the contrary, 'you are either with the communists or against them'.
Whether you plant the seeds of communism/fascism, water the seeds, tend to the garden or 'reap the harvest', you are one and the same when and if the anti-freedom harvest begins - no one in the communist food chain will survive what will ensue.
The whole country isn't Kalifornia.
When it comes to that pass, we will come for the politicians who send the confiscators. Then we will come for those who voted and applauded them into power.
To paraphrase Patton, I'm more than willing to make the other sumbitch die in defense of my inalienable rights.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Buy Lots Of Ammunition Today, Cache, and never ever surrender.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.