<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A third-rate "expose"
Review: For the reader already having made up his mind about the NRA, there probably is no value in reading this book. Those holding an anti-NRA stance will find little or no new useful information to support their position. Those of the opposite view also will find little to warrant buying the book, the arguments and views offered generally being "the same old stuff". The sophisticated reader will discern that this book is scarcely above tabloid journalism, though it does offer a minor study of classic propaganda technique. Some facts and credible assertions are woven with a host of inaccuracies and unsubstantiated allegations, and the whole bag then is presented as "fact". Anderson basically touts the anti-gun viewpoint, reciting the usual various hysterical and non-factual claims. As openly editorial writing, that would be acceptable. But Anderson instead alleges this book to be a summary of facts, and in doing so he doesn't meet minimum professional or common standards of responsible reporting.
Rating:
Summary: Lies
Review: I admit, after about halfway through, I couldn't finish the book. There was nothing of any real value to what I read. NO organization the size of the NRA (over 3 million members) is without its share of controversy or disagreement among its members, but this book doesn't even try to capture an objective picture of this aspect of the NRA. Instead, it's like reading low grade political material slamming the competition, as though the author was being paid to make the NRA look as bad as possible, as apparently, he was. I pity anyone who reads this book expecting to learn anything about the NRA. I recommend books by Gary Kleck and John Lott for those wishing factual, objective information about gun control and, peripherally, the NRA.
Rating:
Summary: tabloid propaganda
Review: I admit, after about halfway through, I couldn't finish the book. There was nothing of any real value to what I read. NO organization the size of the NRA (over 3 million members) is without its share of controversy or disagreement among its members, but this book doesn't even try to capture an objective picture of this aspect of the NRA. Instead, it's like reading low grade political material slamming the competition, as though the author was being paid to make the NRA look as bad as possible, as apparently, he was. I pity anyone who reads this book expecting to learn anything about the NRA. I recommend books by Gary Kleck and John Lott for those wishing factual, objective information about gun control and, peripherally, the NRA.
Rating: 
Summary: Solid information, excellent case, good presentation
Review: I believe in 95% of the information and numerous sources that Mr. Anderson uses to make his case, which is this - the NRA is consolidating and perhaps increasing its political power in Washington D.C., but it is RAPIDLY losing the confidence of the general public.Mr. Anderson has an objective view toward sensible gun legislation. He does not advocate registration, or confiscation, or any other ultra-radical anti-gun stance. However, he does expose the NRA for what they appear to be - ultra-conservative, ultra-right radicals, who are unwilling to compromise on, or even suggest sensible gun legislation and/or safety measures that would benefit the average citizen, without comprimising their rights, constitutional or otherwise. BTW, I am a former member of the NRA and consider myself a conservative. Anyone thinking about this ongoing gun debate will benefit from this book. My review is from the audio version of this book.
Rating:
Summary: My opinion
Review: My opinion on reading the Amazon.com review of this book is that the Amazon book reviewer is being permitted to interject person feelings about the subject. Review the book, not the topic.
Rating:
Summary: Lies
Review: What can one say about a book riddled with inaccuracies? Has Anderson even checked the judicial record? What about the ideas held by our founding fathers? After all, they wrote the Constitution. Since all this misinformation must be deliberate, as Anderson is obviously a man with powers of reason, I'd have to characterize his "facts" as lies.
<< 1 >>
|
