Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Another Chicago suit | Main | Political donations »

More on Bellesiles' latest

Posted by David Hardy · 13 July 2010 08:52 AM

James Lindgren reports on his more extensive investigation. He submits that Chronicles of Higher Education, which published B's article, at this point must ask him for proof, because every indicator is that his article is fiction.

Update: last night Chronicles informed Prof. Lindgren that it is doing just that.

5 Comments | Leave a comment

K. D. | July 13, 2010 2:21 PM | Reply

Thanks for updating the developing story.

I agree with your previous commenters *(on your blog post of a few days ago) that we must not jump to conclusions on partial data (my wife calls this "jumping to a concussion").

However, there is, indeed, a lot of stuff that, at this point, doesn't seem to add up. If Bellesiles' Chronicle piece is able to withstand a serious review by other scholars and the Chronicle staff, fine. If not, then Bellesiles' writings will surely warrant no more attention from me.

Critic | July 13, 2010 7:50 PM | Reply

My guess is that he had written a note of the soldier's name, but there was a flood in his office again that destroyed his notes. :)

Gene Hoffman | July 14, 2010 12:37 AM | Reply

Thank goodness that the other side in the gun debate really is this incompetent...

-Gene

Harry Schell | July 14, 2010 10:01 AM | Reply

Some people just can't let accuracy get in the way of a "good story".

Margaret Meade and Rigoberto Menchu both wrote hoaxes. The first started the sexual revolution, the scond got a Nobel. Both were found out eventually, both witnessed that lies can prove "the larger truth".

Bellesiles just wasn't as good a liar as those two, in his book, couldn't defend his work and got hurt for it. The other two made it to some level of "stardom".

I dunno if his story, this time, is true or not, what the Council's requirements for fact are. I hope Bellesiles can prove his tale just to see that he learned his lesson.

It would prove liars can change and might inspire some in the poltical class to reconsider their paths...

Jim D. | July 14, 2010 11:13 AM | Reply

I predict Bellisiles' article will be redacted.

Leave a comment