<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Common Sense
Review: "It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun." - Ronald Reagan *endorsing* the Brady handgun control bill, at a March 1991 event commemorating 10th anniversary of the assassination attempt.
Rating: 
Summary: Tears down most gun control arguments, won't convert anti's
Review: Does a pretty good job of explaining why most if not all gun control concepts and demands will not work and in some cases may not even be meant to. Each chapter is extensively footnoted (I'd like more detail in them)and features numerous quotes from various figures throughout history on what the Country's founders really meant and why they meant what they said. In many cases examples are given of the various control proposals that have been made, followed by just how they've failed. I appreciate the care given to the reporting of what many have privately, if not always publicly, said about what they really want for guns in America.
This book won't convince those that refuse to be convinced but should be read by anyone who has an honest interest in the facts about gun control.
Rating:
Summary: Arthur Hayhoe needs Grammar and Spelling Lessons
Review: I wasn't even going to look at Mr. LaPierre's book until I saw the simplistic and grammatically challenged "review" posted by one "Arthur Hayhoe." If the only "review" this guy can dish up is comprised almost exclusively of his own warmed-over leftist ideology and revisionist history, then LaPierre must be on to something.
Rating:
Summary: Solid criticism of gun control
Review: I'm not a member of the NRA or even a gunowner, but I have to praise this book highly. LaPierre and Baker do an outstanding job of defending the rights of gunowners in Shooting Straight. The authors address and rebut most of the common gun-control arguments. Their defense of the 2nd Amendment as being a personal right rather than a collective right was particularly convincing. Any fair-minded reader will be forced to concede that LaPierre and Baker have demolished a number of the myths of the gun control crowd. Even if you're a gun control proponent, I urge to read this book with an open mind. The NRA has been treated unfairly by the established media; I'm glad they decided to take their case to the public. However, I do have one strong disagreement with the authors. On page 52, they urge "the enforcement of the 20,000 gun control laws on the books." Wait a minute. The authors devoted the rest of the book to showing us gun control laws don't reduce crime. So why do we need to enforce thousands of laws that are ineffective as well as probably being unconstitutional? The authors don't explain this inconsistency. In my judgement, this weakness keeps the book from meriting a 5 star rating. Nevertheless, it is still an excellent book that I can proudly recommend.
Rating: 
Summary: Finally the truth about guns
Review: It is unfortunate how many people think they know something about guns, however, they have absolutely no idea (never owned one,never viewed children in the field with their parents enjoying the outdoors, etc...). The media tries so hard to brain wash the ignorant and weak to believe guns are bad. Guns have been a positive part of our heritage from the beginning (parents and children, friends, individuals and their dogs, etc...) and this book shows the TRUE story from people who know something about guns and not those misinformed people who get their information strictly from the media.
Rating:
Summary: Finally the truth about guns
Review: Mr. Arthur Hayhoe comments below contradict his own opening paragraph. To all readers please read the United States Supreme Court (USSC) Decision in Perpich v. DOD (1990 Justice Kennedy wrote the decision) and the Lopez v. U.S. (1994 Justice Scilia wrote the decision). You will find the individual right to a gun very well established. If you doubt that then read the papers of the Continental Congress during the formation of our country. But that is about 3000 pages of reading. Best wishes Steve Grigsby
Rating:
Summary: Previous Reader violates own statements & hasn't read law
Review: Mr. Arthur Hayhoe comments below contradict his own opening paragraph. To all readers please read the United States Supreme Court (USSC) Decision in Perpich v. DOD (1990 Justice Kennedy wrote the decision) and the Lopez v. U.S. (1994 Justice Scilia wrote the decision). You will find the individual right to a gun very well established. If you doubt that then read the papers of the Continental Congress during the formation of our country. But that is about 3000 pages of reading. Best wishes Steve Grigsby
Rating: 
Summary: The same old myth's
Review: There is absolutely nothing new in "Shooting Straight" for either gun control advocats or gun right advocates. This is nothing but a re-hash of old gun lobby arguements, i.e. that the founding fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights specifically to guarantee each American an absolute right to any kind of firearm without any legislative constraints much the same and exactly the same as are guaranteeded by the right of free speach so that we would be able to defend ourself from our government if it became tyrannical, that the 240 million firearms in circulation have actually made this country safer and that more guns in circulatuon will make us even safer, that any efforts to prevent guns from falling into the wrong is nothing but a scheme to take all guns away and other variations on this theme. Unfortunately the historical record just does not support the gun lobbies reading of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment makes no reference to the private ownership of firearms and if it did as the gun lobby claims it means our founding fathers were do dumb they wanted to conduct government with guns pointed at their heads and would have had no legal or constitutional right to protect their fledgling democracy from crackpots, saboteurs, traitors or armed mobs (Citizens militia) and no right to call out their only armed instrument of state, their "Well regulated Militia" to put down the Shay, Whisky and other armed rebellion we have had throughout our history. Mr. LaPierre simply cannot explain, and doesn't even try, how one can on one hand can claim a constitutional right to start shooting at ones own overnment if it, as Mr. LaPierre so often points out, has become tyrannical, and at the same time claim protection from within that very same government!! No democracy anywhere in the world has such statements written into their constitution. If the did they would have perished long ago, including this county. And Mr. LaPierre claims our founding fathers put such a right our constitution and or Bill Of Rights? Absolute nonsense!
<< 1 >>
| 
