Replies

That book was a GREAT read. The political and social aspects were just part of the package. I've rarely read a novel where the author was so well informed and had such detailed knowledge on such a variety of issues.

It was a great read, and contained a lot of details on historical and social points that are likely to be an important education for readers who hadn't already done a lot of personal research into the guns/rights issues.

However, I should point out that while a lot of Ross's historical points are very good, some of them should *not* be taken as gospel. He fumbled a few key points about the 1939 US Supreme Court decision _US v Miller_, for example, and in his passages about the JFK assassination he leans way too much towards some of the more tinfoil-hatted conspiracy "factoids", including the highly questionable and the outright discredited.

Agreed. Some parts of it were certainly fiction, and other parts I had to hold my nose through.

Neither of us would call it a "classic", but find it enjoyable, very well written, educational and at times enlightening.

However, I should point out that while a lot of Ross's historical points are very good, some of them should *not* be taken as gospel. He fumbled a few key points about the 1939 US Supreme Court decision _US v Miller_, for example, and in his passages about the JFK assassination he leans way too much towards some of the more tinfoil-hatted conspiracy "factoids", including the highly questionable and the outright discredited.

I'm sure you are right, but could you point out the key errors or distortions in each case, as an educational exercise? Other than the clearly fictionalised accounts of conversations during the arrest and between Miller and his lawyer, as well as the lawyer and his partner.

To my way of thinking two things were highly unusual about the case. First it was appealed directly to the Supreme Court from the district court and second the Solicitor General of the United States himself argued the case before the Suprme Court. (FYI, That's the same position now held by Ted Olson) To me this means that the administration at the time (Roosevelt, IIRC) felt it highly important that this first federal encroachment on the second amendment be upheld.

"He fumbled a few key points about the 1939 US Supreme Court decision _US v Miller_, for example, and in his passages about the JFK assassination he leans way too much towards some of the more tinfoil-hatted conspiracy "factoids", including the highly questionable and the outright discredited."

I'm curious what are the most serious errors on these subjects. I thought he was pretty spot on with Miller, and the JFK stuff (quite brief) focused on the difficulty of making the shots as alleged, and how a shooter would have shot earlier, when the motorcade was approaching head on.