[2dogs]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030107/ap_on_en_ot/history_book_canceled_1

Publisher Stops History Book Publication
Tue Jan 7, 5:34 PM ET

By HILLEL ITALIE, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - Publication has been halted on a disputed book about the history of guns in the United States.



Questions about Michael Bellesiles' "Arming America" had already led Columbia University to rescind the prestigious Bancroft Prize for history.


When Columbia made the announcement last month, publisher Alfred A. Knopf said the book would remain in print. But Jane Garrett, Bellesiles' editor, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the publisher would no longer sell it.


"We are in the process of ending our contractual arrangement with Michael for `Arming America,'" Garrett said.


According to Garrett, Bellesiles (pronounced Bell-eel) had proposed some revisions, but the publisher found them inadequate. Knopf spokesman Paul Bogaards said the decision to stop printing "Arming America" was made weeks ago, although without a formal announcement.


Efforts to reach Bellesiles for comment were not immediately successful; he recently resigned as a professor at Emory University, after an independent panel of scholars commissioned by the school strongly criticized his research.


According to Garrett, the book has sold about 8,000 copies in hardcover and about 16,000 in paperback.


Bellesiles spent 10 years working on "Arming America," published by Knopf in 2000. The book challenges the idea that the United States has always been a gun-oriented culture and that well-armed militias were essential to the Revolutionary War.


"Arming America" was praised in both The New York Times and The New York Review of Books and won the Bancroft Prize, presented to works of "exceptional merit and distinction in the fields of American history and biography."


Many cited it as a devastating statement against America's alleged historical love affair with firearms. But gun advocates quickly attacked the book, and scholars and critics also became skeptical.


The Emory report, written by scholars from Harvard and Princeton universities and the University of Chicago, said Bellesiles' failure to cite sources for crucial data "does move into the realm of 'falsification.'" It also suggested he omitted other researchers' data that contradicted his arguments.


Garrett said Tuesday that she still had "great respect" for the author. "I still do not believe in any shape or form he fabricated anything," she said. "He's just a sloppy researcher."


Bellesiles has acknowledged some errors, but defends his book as fundamentally sound.


"I have never fabricated evidence of any kind nor knowingly evaded my responsibilities as a scholar," he said after announcing his resignation in October.

[tyme]

I'm weepy.

[Calamity Jane]

YEAH!! Now, that's what I call good news. http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/dday/yes.gif

[Greg L]

Garrett said Tuesday that she still had "great respect" for the author. "I still do not believe in any shape or form he fabricated anything," she said. "He's just a sloppy researcher."

She probably believes that Clinton didn't inhale too. I'm sorry, but given the mountain of evidence, you may not like it, but to not believe it should be cause for you to be removed from your job. You just proved that you can not/will not be objective while looking at material. Given that, Knopf as your employer should remove you from any editorial duties as you may once again decide that the "message" is more important that then truth.

Greg

[MonkeyMan]

Gee, maybe there's hope for this rat-infested, liberal cesspool called Emory.

See ya Mikey, don't let the door hit you in the a** on the way out.
:neener:

[Master Blaster]

Garrett said Tuesday that she still had "great respect" for the author. "I still do not believe in any shape or form he fabricated anything," she said. "He's just a sloppy researcher."

If you or I submitted a paper as a grad student and we did what Bellesiles did we would be thrown out of the graduate program.

He Fabricated evidence and he was very sloppy in his fabrication.

He quoted probate records from the 1850-1900 period, specifically found at the Court House in San Francisco California.
He used them as evidence, and cited them in his bibliography as original source material.

Only 1 HUGE problem, the courthouse burned to the ground in 1906 in the great San Francisco earthquake, all the probate records he cited, were destroyed in 1906. The whole lot 1850-1900 burned to ashes in 1906.

There is no way that anyone could say that this was not an intentional fabrication.

Belleel is an idiot, as well as a liar.


:scrutiny:

[foghornl]

I heard (or read) somewhere that the Bancroft Award was revoked, too, but I haven't been able to confirm that.


BTW, isn't his name "Belles-Lies" ? ? ?

[cuchulainn]

foghornl

Here's UPI's story on Columbia revoking the Bancroft: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021217-114343-7257r

[PATH]

I love it when liberals get hoisted on their own petard!

Nah Nah Nah Nah, Nah Nah Nah Nah!!!!!!
Hey, Hey, GOODBYE!!!

:D

[DonP]

The Bancroft prize committee rescinded his award before Christmas, if I recall correctly.

Yes, he is supposed to return the award money to the committee. Don't hold your breath on that one.

This is indeed good news ... that no one will hear. Brit Hume and Rush reported on the Bancroft award being pulled and his departure from Emory.

But for some strange reason the NY Times didn't feel it was the same kind of front page news that the orioginal release of the bok was. Imagine that?

He's gone, the book is being pulled, he has been disgraced by his fellow academicians, he has embarassed the Bancroft committee and his former University. It's the academic equivalent of a tar and feathering and being run out of town on a rail.

Good riddance to another liberal with a blind agenda.

Don P.

[4v50 Gary]

An author generally receives 10% profits from the publisher. So, if 8,000 hardbacks ($30 each? My guess) and 16,000 paperbacks were sold ($20 each? Another guess) that would work out to a respective $2.4k & $3.2k. Considering it was ten years of research, that won't even pay for many of the expenses (probably picked up by Emory anyway). A miserable $5,600 to show for ten years and since his credibility is destroyed, no publisher will touch him. :D

Now, a publisher can "dump" his book on a discount jobber and write off the loss, thereby decreasing any "profit" (happens all the time in the publishing business) and this will probably happen with the left over copies.

Admit it guys, there are only two good uses for the book. The cover is pretty (Harnett's tromp l'oeil painting of the gun) and the pages, fire starter of course. :)

[M1911Owner]

Bellesiles spent 10 years working on "Arming America," published by Knopf in 2000. The book challenges the idea that the United States has always been a gun-oriented culture and that well-armed militias were essential to the Revolutionary War.

"Arming America" was praised in both The New York Times and The New York Review of Books and won the Bancroft Prize, presented to works of "exceptional merit and distinction in the fields of American history and biography."

Many cited it as a devastating statement against America's alleged historical love affair with firearms...
But,

But gun advocates quickly attacked the book...

"Bellesiles' failure to cite sources for crucial data "does move into the realm of 'falsification.'"....

"I still do not believe in any shape or form he fabricated anything," she said. "He's just a sloppy researcher."...

Bellesiles has acknowledged some errors, but defends his book as fundamentally sound. "I have never fabricated evidence of any kind..."

OK, so we have a highly-praised book, a book that's a devastating statement against America's love affair with the gun, that was attacked by gun advocates, and, well, he was just a little, teensy-weensy bit sloppy in his research. You know, it may have some errors, he may have failed to cite some sources, but his condemnation of "America's love affair with the gun" is based on ten years of "fundamentally sound" work.

Don't you just love unbiased journalism? :fire: :banghead: :cuss:

[Soap]

The socialist/commie scene rarely eats its own so we're witnessing a milestone event.

This is just awesome!

[Frohickey]

I wonder how many of the 24,000 copies were bought by Sarah Brady and denizens?

Lets see...
Forced resignation from Emory University
Rescinded Bancroft prize money
Reputation in ruins
Publication of book stopped

Michael Bellesiles has only two options.
1) Work for Sarah Brady
2) Work for Ronald McDonald

[MonkeyMan]

Daniel Flory hit the nail square on the head. People that have little or no contact with academia don't know that these folks can out good-ole-boy the good-ole-boys in their sleep. Take it from someone in the middle of it, this is GREAT! In 13 years at this sink hole I've only seen it happen one other time and that one never got the publics attention. Ssshhh-very hush, hush.

:banghead: :cuss:

Stay safe.

[Oatka]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I intend to ask the Clark County library system what their policy is on retaining a book that has all those caveats.

I have no problem in them retaining it as long as there's some kind of note attached to the book, notifying the reader that the Bancroft prize has been recalled and the book's printing suspended because of false info.

It might be something to ask your local library. That would be the crowning blow - even the libraries dump the copy.

That won't stop the Brady Bunch and their clones from still referring to it, as in the Kellerman "study", but it affords a great chance to quote its history, as Frohickey has done, with this addendum:

Forced resignation from Emory University
Rescinded Bancroft prize money
Reputation in ruins
Publication of book stopped
Libraries refused to carry it, even under “Fiction”

[nualle]

Oatka: not such a bad idea. I've often seen an old book with an "Errata" leaf tucked just inside the front cover listing each page on which an error (usually a typo) is printed with its correction. Perhaps as a political action, you could print up a whole bunch of such pages for the library to slip into Bellesiles's book. (Or, you could systematically borrow each of the library's copies and slip them in yourself... go back a year later and I bet they'll still be there.)

[spartacus2002]

Now it's time to start writing Amazon, B&N, BAM, Borders, etc. and ask them to either file it under fiction or stop selling it.

[DonP]

The real saving grace of this whole ugly event was that he was undone, not by the "gun nuts", but by fellow academicians.

He was not "picked on" by the NRA or anyone esle. His work did not stand up to the most cursory peer review. After the original press hoopla hit, some academics tried to use some of his research and sources and found them non-existent or mysteriously unavailble (The flood in the basement story).

After several of them had the same problem checking his sources, they did an informal peer review and started to uncover more inconsistencies. That led to the formal peer review that was his ultimate undoing.

That review included Hannah Gray the former Chancellor of the University of Chicago and several other people with impeccable academic credentials and they roasted him slowly and completely.

Us "Gun Nuts" had nothing to do with his undoing, thankfully. But then again it doesn't serve the purpose of trying to salvage some of his "findings" to admit it was all made up stuff.

Don P.

[sw442642]

Clayton Cramer - who writes in Shotgun News - is a gun "nut" and had a hand in his demise. Cramer is not an academic but a software engineer.

[Oatka]

nualle - Interesting approach, for I have seen a few myself.

Unfortunately, in this case, the errata pages would outnumber the original. :)

[OF]

I love it. This made my day.

- Gabe :D

[Big Al]

The poor thing. Better get that spatula ready.:D

[Bruce H]

There have been people convicted of fraud with a lot less evidence. The man really needs to have his life trashed as best as possible.

[Bahadur]

Columbia also requested that Bellesiles return $4,000 in prize money. It is the first time the prize has been withdrawn since it was first awarded in 1948.Ouch, that must've hurt!

How will the good professor make a living, now that even the Brady Bunch will not touch him with a ten-foot pole? No doubt some lucky community college will give him a "second chance."
"I was not allowed to put the packets in the mailboxes of professors and staff, so with the approval of the secretary, I placed them on the desk," he said. "According to a friendly TA (teaching assistant), whose anonymity I have kept secret for the protection of his career, Professor Eric Foner saw the handouts and threw a fit. All of the packets were thrown out."You gotta love the toleration of opposing views and the widespread appreciation for open debate in the academia! :)
"Arming America" was embraced by many scholars because it appeared to confirm what several already believed: that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right to bear arms, and individual gun rights were unimportant to America's Founders (emphasis mine).Whoa! Gotta love that academic integrity - because, as all know, belief is reality.

The whole episode has been so, so sweet. Yet the fruits of victory are also bitter for we do not share them with all.

Can we imagine just what sort of media frenzy there would have been if this were a pro-Second Amendment scholar whose work was found to be "merely sloppy"? Yet the silence in the media over this little episode is... deafening to those who can hear!

[4v50 Gary]

It was mentioned earlier that the "good ole boy" network exists in academia. It does but is called "academic freedom" and is something that goes hand in hand with "tenure." Once one is off probation (full professorship?), like that enjoyed by Bellesiles, they're "tenured" and can then say virtually anything they want to say within their field of expertise. It can be extremely controversial but the spirit of academic freedom is unlike political correctness. This allows for open discussio (again contrary to PC) to stimulate thought in the academic environment. Without this, we'd still be studying Aristotle.

What gave Emory the ammunition to let Bellesiles go is his embarassing of Emory. While a scholar can say virtually anything, it'd better be good and add to the prestige of the university. His pack of lies probably raised their collective blood pressure and they needed the outside investigation (assurances of objectivity/unbias) in order to pressure him out.

I wouldn't hire him to teach grade school history, but I'm sure he can be a good tour guide. Charleston is good. They've got horses there. For the rest of his life he can stare at a horse's behind & breathe in their farts :D

[Standing Wolf]

It couldn't have happened to a more deserving liar!

[Blackhawk]

I used to have a lot of respect for Knopf as one of the better publishers. That evaporated when they published that creep's book and didn't check out the "noise" about it soon after. It wasn't hard to find out that the creep's foundation for his book was severely lacking, and why Knopf would publish the book in the first place is beyond me.

Sorry, Knopf. Too little, too late.... :cuss:

[Bahadur]

4v50 Gary
It was mentioned earlier that the "good ole boy" network exists in academia. It does but is called "academic freedom" and is something that goes hand in hand with "tenure." Once one is off probation (full professorship?), like that enjoyed by Bellesiles, they're "tenured" and can then say virtually anything they want to say within their field of expertise. It can be extremely controversial but the spirit of academic freedom is unlike political correctness. This allows for open discussio (again contrary to PC) to stimulate thought in the academic environment. Without this, we'd still be studying Aristotle.Apparently, this respect for "academic freedom" does not extend to those who do not have tenure (like the TA remains anonymous and the undergraduate whose flyers were tossed).

An "academic freedom" that is limited to a small group of people in leadership roles of an institution while the same is denied to their assistants and pupils is no freedom at all.

I speak from experience as a former academician.

[jmbg29]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I intend to ask the Clark County library system what their policy is on retaining a book that has all those caveats. I took your excellent idea and ran with it. Today I printed out the AP story and gave it to our local research librarian. She was shocked. She promised to send the information off to her superiors.

Of the 8,000 hardbacks sold, the King County Library system owns 12.

I can't wait to find out what the People's Republic of King County intends to do with them.It was mentioned earlier that the "good ole boy" network exists in academia. It does but is called "academic freedom" and is something that goes hand in hand with "tenure." Once one is off probation (full professorship?), like that enjoyed by Bellesiles, they're "tenured" and can then say virtually anything they want to say within their field of expertise. It can be extremely controversial but the spirit of academic freedom is unlike political correctness. This allows for open discussio (again contrary to PC) to stimulate thought in the academic environment. Without this, we'd still be studying Aristotle.I know professors who have been permanently ostracized for holding politically incorrect veiwpoints. They may not be able to be fired from their tenured positions (sans extreme pressure to resign as in B-what'shisnames case) but they certainly don't enjoy anything approaching freedom. They are all in the five colleges area of Amerst MA, and since that was the cradle of PC, they probably suffer more than other areas. Give it enough time and you will see more and more voices silenced. PC is bad, bad stuff.

I've known even more students with a lot on the ball that nearly flunked out until they learned to do their time, parrot back the PC nonsense and get their diploma and get out. What they recieve for their tuition is more properly described as indoctrination. Any education that they do recieve is incidental.

An "academic freedom" that is limited to a small group of people in leadership roles of an institution while the same is denied to their assistants and pupils is no freedom at all. Bingo!

[Hkmp5sd]

If you can't get your local library to dump the books, try to get them reclassified as fiction. At least that will stick them where no one will confuse them with actual history references.

[dave]

IIRC, a few days ago this was talked about on the radio. I think it was NPR, but not 100% sure. There was an interviw with a woman whose name I don't recall(didn't really start listening until they were well into the report). She stated that she, and many others, believed everything in the book.

It seems that they feel Mr. Bellesiles has been the victim of the "right wing gun lobby". She said he (Mr. B) left Emory because he was upset that the school had give in to the pressure brought to bear by some "secret right wing power groups". When asked who she was talking about she said "I'm afraid for my life if I give out that information".

I wouldn't worry about Mr. Bellesiles, seems there are still folks who want/need to hear his version of history. He'll make a living going around the country telling his sad tale. It's all he has.

[Hkmp5sd]

There is a simple way to debunk Bellesiles to any believer. He claims that he started with the original records everyone else used, but went deeper into the records looking for more information.

So by looking at the same plus MORE records, somehow he came out with FEWER guns that previous historians.:banghead:

[2dogs]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030110-89202833.htm

Discredited volume on U.S. gun culture going out of print
By Robert Stacy McCain
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Alfred A. Knopf Inc. has halted publication of a book that claimed guns were rare in early America, after Columbia University revoked a prestigious award to the author who was accused of research misconduct.

Michael A. Bellesiles' "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" won critical praise when it was published in the fall of 2000, and received the Bancroft Prize for historical writings in 2001, but was later discredited by researchers who found evidence that the author had fabricated or misrepresented his sources.
"The book had been subject to criticisms and we certainly looked at that," Knopf spokesman Paul Bogaards said yesterday. "As a responsible publisher, we thought it best to let the book go out of print."
The decision by Knopf, a division of Random House, to cease publication of "Arming America" was the latest in a series of reversals for Mr. Bellesiles, whose book initially generated widespread acclaim:
•Columbia revoked the Bancroft Prize — considered the most prestigious award for history writing — on Dec. 16, saying the university's board of trustees "concluded that [Mr. Bellesiles] had violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."
•In October, Emory University announced that Mr. Bellesiles would resign as a history professor there. A review committee of three outside scholars found Mr Bellesiles' work showed "evidence of falsification," "egregious misrepresentation" and "exaggeration of data."
cIn May, the National Endowment for the Humanities demanded that the federal agency's name be removed from a fellowship awarded to Mr. Bellesiles, saying that "the name of the National Endowment for the Humanities represents a standard that Professor Bellesiles' application [for the fellowship] did not meet."
Despite Knopf's decision to stop publication of "Arming America," officials of the company continued to defend Mr. Bellesiles.
"I don't think there was any malice on Michael's part," Mr. Bogaards said.
Mr. Bellesiles' editor at Knopf, Jane Garrett, told the Associated Press, "I still do not believe in any shape or form he fabricated anything. He's just a sloppy researcher."
Those remarks angered one of Mr. Bellesiles' most persistent critics, author Clayton Cramer.
"I am very disappointed that Knopf is still pretending that Bellesiles's problem is just that he's a sloppy researcher," said Mr. Cramer, who exposed alterations of historic texts in the Bellesiles book. "He has told too many different, contradictory stories. He is a liar, and Knopf should feel real shame about allowing this fraud to continue as long as it did."
"Arming America," with its claims that guns were rare and militias ineffective in early America, was celebrated by gun-control advocates who said the book proved the Second Amendment was not meant to protect a right to private gun ownership.
Mr. Bellesiles was called "the NRA's worst nightmare," and even filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a federal trial involving gun control.
Despite its acclaim, however, the book came under increasingly harsh scrutiny by scholars, including James Lindgren, a law professor at Northwestern University who found errors in Mr. Bellesiles' research.
Journalist Melissa Seckora of National Review found that Mr. Bellesiles cited California records that authorities agreed had been destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Ohio State University history professor Randolph Roth concluded that assertions in "Arming America" were "not supported by the sources Mr. Bellesiles cites, the sources he does not cite, or by the data he presents."
Mr. Bogaards of Knopf said it is rare that a history book by a respected scholar leads to such claims of misrepresentation.
"I think instances like what we experienced with 'Arming America' are the very infrequent exception in our business," Mr. Bogaards said. "In most cases, the credentials will stand up. Most history books, you're not going to have teams of lawyers looking at it."

[Master Blaster]

Mr. Bellesiles was called "the NRA's worst nightmare," and even filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a federal trial involving gun control.


Could He be prosecuted for filing false testimony in a federal case, would this be perjury?



Journalist Melissa Seckora of National Review found that Mr. Bellesiles cited California records that authorities agreed had been destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.

No one can say he accidentally made up information that did not exist. He is really an idiot who does not know history, Interpreting existing records incorrectly is one thing, but a blatant fabrication of data cited as source material, there is no possibility that that was an honest mistake.

[nualle]

Oatka noted:
[...] the errata pages would outnumber the original. :)
I see what you mean. Perhaps, then, the peer review article that James Lindgren wrote (anyone know where it's published?) can be copied small enough to fit inside the cover.

Supplying the crucial, missing information—from a scholar, who is held to as high a standard as Bellesiles claimed, rather than a journalist, who isn't—solves the problem without recourse to censorship.

[MonkeyMan]

Master Blaster raises an interesting question:

"Could He be prosecuted for filing false testimony in a federal case, would this be perjury?"

Didn't the 9th circuit court recently quote "Belly-Silly" in one of their decisions?

:confused:

[Soap]

OT but...

Monkeyman,

I like that quote on your sig line! Where is it from?

[4v50 Gary]

Bahadur - you're absolutely correct about "academic freedom" not applying to TAs or non-tenured professors or "professional lecturers" or anything other than full tenured professorship. Keeps the peons in place you understand. Belly aching is only permitted to undergrads (but who listens to them unless they're in a mob).

I have a friend who is tenured in Washington State and when he taught at U.C. Davis, San Jose State and UCLA (all creative writing), his "peers" disliked him as an outsider. You see, he didn't go through their grist mill to get there. He came via being an accomplished writer and as an attorney. The latter gave him the capability to take them "head on" if he choose and they knew and resented it. The "ivory tower" is supported by those within and to exclude those without.

[MonkeyMan]

Daniel Flory, check your PM.

I just had to share this. I actually had an uber-lib co-worker complain the other day that it was getting hard to be a flaming liberal around here. The comment was prompted by my telling her that I used electronic hearing protection to shoot pistol competition (IDPA). You would have thought from the look on her face that I'd dropped something really offensive in the punch bowl. All of that and now the "NRA's Worst Nightmare" is getting hammered too? Get your high-water pants on folks, there's a flood of crocodile tears coming. :D

[BigG]

Although I am sure there are exceptions to the rule, academicians are right there, feeding on the bottom right next to their skin brothers lawyers and politicians. Oh yeah, and reporters. :barf: :cuss:

[Henry Bowman]

It burns me up that my local library system has 25 copies (I counted them) of this PC crap at various branches and not a single copy of "Unintended Consequenses" by John Ross. I would systematically check out and destroy all 25 copies, except that I am a law abiding and morally upright person. I would, however, systematically check out and permanently insert a warning label. If anyone drafts an insert, please post it for all of us to use!

[nualle]

Found the Lindgren article here:
http://64.247.33.250/lawrev/Lindgren.pdf

[MeekandMild]

Interesting.

It occurred to me when this flap started that even if he had been 100% truthful and accurate in his study of probate records his data would have been worthless.

Why?

Because the tradition in most of the families I have known has always been when a parent dies the guns are unofficially divided up by the heirs long before the estate ever goes to probate.

How so?

I have known many elderly people and long before they died they have either given their guns to their children or named which child got which gun. Guns (as well as knives and precision tools) are most likely to be given as gifts of love from fathers to sons so that is would be sacrilage to leave them for some court to paw over and defame.

[4v50 Gary]

Meek & Mild - we think alike. That's the first thing I thought of when I heard of the book. It's a tradition from time immemorial to hide our wealth from the government.

The second thing that struck me is that the literacy rate of Americans along the frontier wasn't the highest. How many could write yet alone afford to pay $ for an attorney to write a will for them? Only the better propertied classes.

[Jim March]

Bellesiles has a current research project in the works. He is determining with statistical accuracy the percentage of people who really DO "want fries with that?".

It will be based on personal in-depth research.

:neener:

[jimmy]

IMO Knopf made itself look stupid by publishing Bellesiles' book in the first place, then went on to complete the destruction of its own credibility by attributing Bellesiles' downfall to sloppiness rather than outright fabrication. Intellectual judgment and honesty are dead at Knopf's. I haven't bought a Knopf book since "Arming America" was published. Now it's no more books for me from this publisher, ever.

[4v50 Gary]

Earlier I mentioned that publishers can reduce the profit from a book. The publisher of Bellesiles fictional work has just done that and dumped a load of his books on one bookseller. Received a newsletter from Edward Hamilton booksellers that has the latest arrivals. Bellesiles once $30 book is now $5.95. That's way too much for scratch paper.

[spartacus2002]

yeah, but it's cheaper than Charmin:D

[Calamity Jane]

I find it sweetly ironic that a book hailed as "the NRA's Worst Nightmare" upon its publication has turned out to be, instead, the Brady Bunch's Worst Nightmare.

:evil: :neener:

[Hkmp5sd]

I hate to say it, but now that Belesiles' work is totally disgraced, I've been thinking about giving it a read. It's good to know the enemy's mind (or lack thereof).

[Hkmp5sd]

I hate to say it, but now that Belesiles' work is totally disgraced, I've been thinking about giving it a read. It's good to know the enemy's mind (or lack thereof).

[Justin]

I hate to say it, but now that Belesiles' work is totally disgraced, I've been thinking about giving it a read. It's good to know the enemy's mind (or lack thereof). I thumbed through a copy at a Barnes and Nobles once. Like any other piece of text that comes out of the anti-gun movement, you're not gonna miss a whole lot if you skip this one.