Marxist historians still at it

If you rely on marxist for your understanding of the past they're hoping you'll be more willing to accept what they want for your future. 

Yahoo News (eh?) recently provided this gem to it's readers:

https://news.yahoo.com/op-ed-why-former-slave-111550142.html

Apparently there's two ahh, 'academics' who are either bad at simple research, or, who resemble marxists in abusing the truth to promote a political objective.

They claim the US is unusual in that "Unlike the rest of the developed world, firearms ownership in America is broadly held, with an estimated 40% of American households owning at least one gun"

Truth is, that put us just 3% ahead of the violent hell hole (sarcasm there) Finland.  https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/finland

The authors then attempt to concoct some kind of race libel against gun ownership by trying to associate it with "the effort by white Southerners to reclaim power in the aftermath of the Civil War".

Given the US and Finn ownership is very similar - and the Finns had no freed slaves roaming about in the late 1800s, one can dismiss their efforts to make an association.  

This OP ED is just another example of leftists eggheads hating on the second amendment.  And, truth is, such 'academics' are rarely made to answer for their lies.  In a remarkable outlier a similar attempt by a 'historian' to misrepresent the history of firearms in America for political purposes led to his public embarrassment - recognition which Buttrick and Mazen richly deserve with their drivel.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America  

Bellesiles argued that "during the early period of US history, guns were uncommon during peacetime and that a culture of gun ownership did not arise until the mid-nineteenth century.

The scholarly investigation confirmed that Bellesiles' work had serious flaws, calling into question both its quality and veracity. The external report on Bellesiles concluded that "every aspect of his work in the probate records is deeply flawed" and called his statements in self-defense "prolix, confusing, evasive, and occasionally contradictory." It concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question" and that he was in violation of the American Historical Association's standards of scholarly integrity

Maybe Buttrick and Mazen could spend more time furthering Mazen's research on 'discrimination against and exploitation of other animals by human animals'.  Yeah lots of CRT stuff to work on there comrades.

   https://pvi.virginia.edu/people/jessica-mazen