The convenient amnesiac. Down John Lott's memory hole.
John Lott has written another book. No big surprise there. The surprise, forwarded to me by David Codrea, is that Lott has sanitized the story of the Fast and Furious scandal by writing me out of it.
Now, it is no surprise that John Lott doesn't like me very much. He took the trouble to personally look me up when I was resting and chatting with supporters on the steps at the side of the Connecticut state house right after my Hartford speech back in April (he also spoke at the rally) to take me to task for my "lawbreaking," saying that I was alienating the vast majority in the center and playing to gun confiscationists' worst characterizations of American firearm owners.
I told him if he was waiting for the "vast middle" to agree with us or to save us from the determined minority of collectivists who sought to disarm us he would be waiting a very long time. He left, frustrated and obviously angry that I could not see his "wisdom." The CCDL folks later told me he was loud in his denunciation of my speech to them as well. They did not agree.
Now it seems I have been "punished" by being swept down Lott's own personal memory hole. Pretty funny, really.
16 comments:
Actually, it seems pretty sad to me that Lott and other highly intelligent members of academia are so steeped in their academic prowess that they fail to see the forest for the trees.
Thanks for your hard work and diligent research, Professor Lott. Now shut the fuck up and let the men in the room approach this problem with the necessary resolve to fix it.
KPN3%
“You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” -Ayn Rand
Mr. Lott's writing is frequently cited in defense of 2A, for which I am very grateful, but the guy is more or less a d-bag. No big news there.
No it sad that he would let his personal disagreement with you skew his reporting of the truth. Very disappointing, but he's human like the rest of us and prone to the same human short comings.
For the Republic, III%
Dr.D
C.O. Ben W. Hooper Bgd
Somewhat of a play on your own words V, but if your waiting for those who need the approval of "The Vast Middle" to give you theirs, you'll be waiting a long time.
Well darn... I was going to buy that book. Guess not. :(
If he can fudge and ignore some facts, why not others? Why should anyone trust him?
That is a shame. Egos getting in the way. Forgive and forget.
Don't let it get you down, Mike. Lott may not like you, but I bet Mary Rosh thinks you're great.
Often 'reasonable' people (like Lott) cannot believe that their opponents are not users of reason.
They are unable, because of their use of reason, to understand the abuse of political power and monopoly of force that is arrayed against our liberty by oppenents bereft of reaon.
This failure of reasoning dooms them to complicit (though unintentional) support of their and our very likely destroyers.
By believing in the use of reason by unreasonable opponents they bet the farm upon the non-existant ability to reason with those who do not use reason.
III
I've met John Lott and I've purchased his earlier tomes to support our cause and become better informed. However, with this most recent revelation and historical revision, Dr. Lott's new book is dead to me!
Yes, and I see my comments regularly swept down the memory hole. :-)
I won't buy any book he writes but I sure WILL BUY "ABSOLVED" when it is finally completed.
I'm thinkin Lott is salty that his pride and joy - a major endeavor showing more guns equal less crime has been relegated to the dustbin of history with one SCOTUS sweep.
I mean, he spends all that time and energy demonstrating a point only to be slapped with a "so what ? That isn't a relevant point".
Whether crime goes up or down cannot be the hinge upon which a natural right rests. For if it was that juvenile, rights would start and stop in a never ending bit of tomfoolery.
Good comments up above! Folks like Lott do think they can reason with the unreasonable - that when you prove their claims wrong they will agree. Unfortunately for him, he now has to witness that those folks just move the goalposts again and again and again.
Lott just now proves he is one of those he claimed to oppose by eliminating part of THE TRUTH. Sad day for lotta credability. He joins the ranks of the usurper himself. He shoulda known better.....
Lott's motivations may be multiple. His background may not have prepared him to believe that the left is well and truly evil. But there is another, non-exclusive possibility: profit. Lott gains economically from his acceptability to the media as a commentator, a profession that his son Maxim seems to be being groomed for. Even FOX is unwilling to touch some topics, e.g., disproportionate black-on-white violence, armed resistance to unconstitutional confiscation of the citizens' firearms. A commentator honestly treats those topics likely will not be appearing on FOX.
Dear Dutchman6:
I don't even know your name and I surely didn't know who you were when I wrote my book "At the Brink." I have a recollection talking to a man during the event in Connecticut what was openly talking about an armed revolution (while I remember the conversation, I don't remember the man's name (that is your name "Dutchman6")). My point was that those statements were going to be seized on by the press to make everyone at the presentation look nutty. I would argue that while it is nice to gin up the base, in order to win elections you have to take into consideration what is a concern for those in the middle of the debate. Explaining why gun ownership helps safety is important. Talking about an armed revolution these days isn't going to help you win over people in the middle of the debate. By the way, I didn't "seek" you out. You walked within two feet of me.
In any case, I don't know your name and I couldn't have excluded you from the book even if I remembered your name from April because I had no idea who you were when I was writing my book a year ago. I am sorry that you felt slighted, but the point of my discussion on Fast & Furious was to point out what the Obama administration had done, not to go and cite everyone who had anything to do with discussing it.
Yeah, why would it be important to mention one of the two people who broke the entire fast and furious story and kept it alive for years? Codrea and mike are both great, and they are a team. You are simply lying if you can cite one of the two people who broke the story but not the other. It is impossible to not have noticed, sort of like only citing Woodward for watergate stories!
Post a Comment