From my lefty critical reviews, more reasons why sane people should buy this book!
“the point is not to show gun control adherents as wrong but as foolish and contemptible”
Indeed. You should have seen what I said about Moms Demand Action before the lawyers made me tone it down!
“the book echoes the recently invented position in the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision holding that the Second Amendment restricts states, a position held by none of the Framers.”
Silly, Clarence Thomas, rights are only for liberals! Everybody knows that SCOTUS can’t tell states they aren’t allowed to restrict their residents’ civil liberties. That’s why Brown v. Board of Education ruled in favor of the democrats and allowed them to keep segregation!
“implies those who do not agree with the author are irrational”
Oh, I don’t just imply it! That’s what all those pages of cites are for.
“implies (gun control vultures) are a threat to democracy”
Well, duh.
“There are better books which support the second amendment in clear and rational terms”
I notice the concern troll reviews (I love the Second Amendment BUT…) always say that, then never name any of these pro 2A books they love. Go figure.
“it felt hate driven”
It probably sounded that way because that one came from an audiobook review of a 7 hour audiobook that was posted like 30 minutes after the audiobook download became available. I imagine everything sounds hatemongery when played at 20x speed.
“This book is a lot of things, mostly it’s the incoherent ramblings of a guy who sleeps with a pistol tucked into his boxers.”
I don’t just stick a gun in my shorts. I carry in a Phlster Floodlight. I’m not a barbarian!
“This repetition of easily debunked radical talking points is harmful to the cause of gun ownership.”
A. Sadly he forgot to list or easily debunk any of my radical talking points. I’m assuming that’s because this was from an unverified purchase so he’d have to actually like read the book and stuff.
B. For some reason I’m kinda thinking this guy isn’t actually that concerned about what’s “harmful” to gun ownership.
“The second amendment, and the current interpretation of it by the court, is in no danger for at least the next twenty years. Just look at who sits on the Supreme Court currently.”
A. Nobody wants your guns (looks at the last week’s activity in New York, Illinois, Maryland, Colorado, California, the ATF’s new brace rule, and a new federal assault weapon’s ban proposal) uh…
B. I was unaware that conservative justices routinely live to be a hundred, but we all feel super better having that single line of defense to not having our rights obliterated! Don’t worry. After your rights, property, and freedom are taken away, maybe, just maybe, in 5-10 years and millions of dollars in lawyer fees your case might make it to a court that currently doesn’t want to make you a serf.
C. 20 years? If this dope had actually read the book he’d know I’m shooting for forever. I’d like my great grandkids to have their liberty too.
“Larry Correa —-Co owner of a Gun Store, Registered Fire Arms Instructor- fiction author in following Genre Urban fantasy Thriller Fantasy Science fiction Doesn’t appear to have any legal qualifications/training. Ummmmm????”
A. You spelled my name wrong. Racist. I’m triggered.
B. Retired gun store owner. Novels pay way better!
C. well, the short version of my gun related resume still managed to take up a couple of pages. But what are my 30 years of experience compared to his 3 minutes on Google? (of course, liberals don’t need experience, they have the Power of Heart. Like Captain Planet!)
D. That last part would probably matter if I’d written a law book. (Good thing the publishing house had lawyers to fact check me!)
There you go. I’m actually kind of gleeful about more of these vapid reviews from gun haters coming in, because this is going to make an amazing blurb sheet. 😀
I encourage everybody to leave an honest review, but please, unlike these dopes, actually wait until you’ve read the book first!
EDIT: The dork who thinks only states have civil liberties showed up on my Twitter feed to yell at me for not buying into his goofy pet legal theory. 😀
I listened. Twice. Left a review after the first listen. And after my second listen, I stand by my review. This is a great book! I hope that the people on the fence read or listen to it and get something out of it. Maybe actually learn something. But I am guessing that true anti gun ownership crowd isn’t going to be swayed by things like logic or common sense. Those are foreign concepts.
> You should have seen what I said about Moms Demand Action before the lawyers made me tone it down!
Bloomberg always comes up with the most ridiculous names for his astroturf operations. Even in this age of “gender fluidity”, Michael Bloomberg isn’t any sort of “mom”.
See also: “Every Town for Gun Safety”. I guess that probably focus-grouped better than “New York Billionaire Against Constitutional Rights”.
My new automatic reply to people who say I’m not “such and such” is… “Are you a qualified book critic? I don’t see your credentials.”
Heinlein had a solution for book critics. And he didn’t worry about their “qualifications” either 🙂
DuckDuckGo refused to send me to this page using the proper link. Speaks volumes.
It worked for me, from a link in mewe. Maybe it was a temporary issue.
DDG is not your friend.
DuckDuckGo works for me getting here.
I once came up with an idea, that both houses of Congress should have on hand a life-sized bronze sculpture of a human fundament, called “The Second Amendment Butt”, and a rule that any member who utters the phrase “I support the Second Amendment, but” would be required to physically hold the Second Amendment Butt aloft while speaking for the remainder of the day.
Come to think of it, we may need to add a “First Amendment Butt” as well.
“sculpture of a human fundament.”
omg, you made my day.
And yes, we certainly need a sculpture of a First Amendment human fundament as well.
Preferably made out of either lead, or maybe osmium or iridium. I’d say gold, but then one of them would probably abscond with the sculpture…
Might I suggest depleted uranium?
Why use depleted uranium. Just have them stand a safe distance away from the other members (unless they’re a democrat?) while they have it.
Um, because I couldn’t find the weight of a cubic foot of DU to compare to a cubic foot of lead?
And osmium (or maybe it was iridium) was around 1400lbs a cubic foot, so they’d have to WORK to hold the butt…
Why depleted? Just make it an active isotope and increase the turnover rate in congress. John McCain and Ted Kennedy can’t be wrong!
How about enriched plutonium, with the hope that if one of them succumbs while holding it aloft, it will hit the floor hard enough to start a sustained reaction from critical mass?
Jason A:
1192 pounds.
Why not “The Constitution Butt”? Covers all the bases, and anyone who uses “but” in that manner probably doesn’t care about the rest of the document either.
There would have to be a great many Butts. Most sessions would involve at least half of the Congresscritters holding one for most of the day.
For a repeat offense in the same day, they would have to hold two.
Dropping the Butt would be punished by enforced silence for an hour. For the first offense. Two hours for subsequent offenses.
———————————
The U.S. Capitol is OUR house. Congresscritters are just the help.
ROFL! I love the idea!
And it’s constitutional!
(Says they have the right to set the rules for their house of congress.)
If it has an anatomically correct puckered orifice, which they’re required to tongue-probe before and after their speech, then I’m all for it.
Hold it aloft nothing. They need to be made to wear it like a hat. To show us where their heads are at.
And what a bunch of asshats they are. 😛
I still don’t understand why even though I am subscribed to this blog under three email addresses (because I kept trying addresses) I don’t get this blog in my inbox or in my spam. I have to pick up links off the street and follow them back here. PS, waiting on the dead tree version of IDOT2A
I’m pretty sure the e-mail subscription is a newsletter not a notification of daily post, but Jack and Larry would know better than me.
Forgotten Weapons (youtube) had an interesting video a few days ago on the SBR topic.
According to him, the original law was going to outlaw handguns and the SBR section was added to close a loophole of cutting down rifles/shotguns to use as pistols.
When they pulled out the handgun ban, they left in the SBR limits (and then modified them later when they realized that surplus military weapons that had been sold to the public were below the original limit)
The more you look into the NFA’s creation the worse it gets
1: They admit a ban would be unconstitutional, so that’s why they do it as a tax. This was JUST before Grosjean v. American Press Co. affirmed that wasn’t the loophole they thought it was, or the Hughes made it a total ban.
2: Heartsill Ragon was part of its creation, something that did not stop him from being judge in US v. Miller
3: The then head of the NRA, Karl Frederick, openly sold out American gun owners.
Please note that the feds cannot tax anything exported from a state. The feds get around this by claiming that meant to a nation outside the Union but no such limitation exists in the Constitution. I am still asking a judge, any judge, to provide with a copy of hiser constitution that has all this extra language in it. So the excise taxes and any other charge on everything made in one state and shipped to another are literally unconstitutional.
The “wanted to ban handguns, but couldn’t get that passed” thing, is 100% correct.
I’m half way through. WILL post a review after I finish. I haven’t found anything I disagree with yet… 🙂
I disagree on one point. At 20x speed audiobooks sound much more chipmunky than hatemongery.
Those hateful, hateful chipmunks…
Beware the Rodent Liberation Front! 😀
Surprised you haven’t gotten the, “I’m a Constitutional originalist and that means the Founding Fathers intended the 2A to apply solely to the muskets that existed in 1776 take”, yet. Maybe tomorrow.
it also applied to cannon and the limited repeaters they had at the time.
That would require a working knowledge of actual factual history something the left goes out of their way to avoid, why they might learn something to make them sad such as in Tiananmen the socialists were the ones Driving the tanks
And warships that were owned by individuals. See Letters or Marques and Reprisal Article 1 Section 8
“I don’t just stick a gun in my shorts. I carry in a Phlster Floodlight. I’m not a barbarian!”
Snub nose or bull barrel? Some folks like them some bragging.
Sadly repealed ca. 1836 or so…
I used to respond to those people with “And freedom of the press only applies to things that were typeset by hand or written with a quill pen.”
Now, not so much. I’m afraid that they’re going to agree with me on that one.
Browsing a few of the usual suspects reacting to Larry’s book, they don’t have coherent arguments to support their stances. It all boils down to “how DARE you!” and lots of sniveling about can’t we all just get along.
These are the same people claiming their violence is speech but our speech is violence, so really no surprise they’re a bunch of incoherent jackasses making troll arguments.
And the Founders meant freedom of religion to apply only to Christians and Jews.
Ummh, no, Jefferson meant it to apply uniformly, and viewed ‘how would this affect Islamites and not Christians?’ as a good test.
“Well Christians don’t marry children anyways…”
I noticed that the one-star review that was on Amazon was surprisingly, not a “verified purchase”. Anyone else see something similar? Almost as though they posted a review without actually READING the book. I know, shocking that someone could be so untrustworthy, and on the Internet, no less!
Larry, I am loving the book so far. One reason I like it is because it’s not a dry recitation of formula and statistics and legal arguments. You’re not just flinging poo, either, but actual knowledge – but you ARE flinging it, with good velocity and accuracy!
I wouldn’t want a stable of only books defending the Second Amendment like this. But it fits nicely with all those other books, just with some “Pull your head out of your butt!” to stir it up.
(I was surprised when I got the email about it being delivered. I had totally forgotten I had pre-ordered the Kindle version. It was a late Christmas surprise! [Or an early Burns Night one.])
Oh, and the state’s rights guy is kinda right – IF you ignore everything from the 14th Amendment onward.
Definitely NOT an “invented” argument.
(The states were originally left to defend their own people’s rights, with the only bit in the Constitution being the “guarantee a republican form of government”. That changed with the 14th Amendment.)
This. The precedent set in Barron v. Baltimore has been overturned quite often. Yes, once upon a time, the Marshall Court ruled that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government. That is no longer true (except maybe for the 3rd Amendment, and only because no state has tried to quarter soldiers in private homes during peace time.)
Want to bet they won’t try to ‘quarter’ illegal aliens?
“They’re not soldiers! It’s not unconstitutional! Emergency powers!”
IIRC, there’s only ever been one case of Third Amendment jurisprudence, and it was applied against a State.
(Engblom v. Carey: Prison guards went on illegal strike, and the State brought in National Guard to fill the jobs. They kicked the striking workers out of their dormitories to accommodate the Guard. Court held this violated 3A.)
I have the distinct memory that there was a third amendment suit as a result of the Waco event, for events not near the Davidian Church. I believe the Federal Government lost.
Yah these people are not arguing in good faith, they don’t deserve to be treated fairly.
They don’t give a damn about saving lives, if they did they would have studied their “enemy” enough to know the difference between semi and auto, magazine and clip.
What I don’t get is how we lose ground to the marxists on every other front, but they wreck themselves on gun control.
I don’t trust it.
“Bruen decision holding that the Second Amendment restricts states, ”
I thought that was MacDonald.
Also, no link to your new book in the “books” column at right?
Oh good call- thank you for the reminder! Links updated
When I hear/read the rants, screeches and vituperative, outraged howls of protest from the woke/progressive left on this and other subjects so dear to them, I’m always left with the impression that I’ve just heard/read a febrile defense of scripture/canon from a member of some ancient death cult.
Why is that?
I hope you all realize the implications of these sorts of reactions from the left.
My mom lived thru lived thru the era of the Fascie Nere in Italy. Before she passed away 2 years ago, she said it felt like it was all happening again and she simply could not bear to live thru it once more.
Rest in peace, mamina. I miss you beyond my ability to put in words, but part of me is glad you are not living thru all of this and what is to come.
I got the audiobook and started listening yesterday. I taught the Tennessee CCW class for 20 years and do far, you seem 100% spot on.
I have to say though, I had to pause listening to the adventures of Tom Stranger, #1 in Customer Service to start In Defense. Now I have to wait to find out the fate of Wendell the Manatee.
Is there a link where I could see your future book tour locations? I’d like to meet you and get a book signed. On that point please come to the Pensacola area if possible. Love your books, can’t wait for the new addition to the saga of the forgotten warrior to come out.
“implies (gun control vultures) are a threat do democracy”
Ah yes, the old chestnut of ‘dangerous for our democracy’. We’ll just gloss over the fact that America isn’t a democracy (though that’s fast changing), it’s a constitutional republic, but okay.
Keep saying ‘our democracy’ often enough and the idiot normies will eventually believe it to be true. The Big Lie, as it’s known.
If he thinks states right trump the second amendment, then is he OK with states allowing free ownership, sale, and manufacture of machineguns and suppressors, and making machinegun ownership mandatory to being allowed to vote?
I look forward to listening to this during my morning commute.
“The second amendment, and the current interpretation of it by the court, is in no danger for at least the next twenty years. Just look at who sits on the Supreme Court currently.”
There’s not going to be a United States in 20 years, much less a Supreme Court, so not much of a counterpoint.
In Canada, self stick bright socks.aka Trudeau in an interview said straight up Canadians have no right to self defense. This flies in the face of our laws but since we don’t have the right to bear arms, the criminals pretty much have licence to rob and kill us
Britian is the real life example of that attitude.
xavier
“the book echoes the recently invented position in the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision holding that the Second Amendment restricts states, a position held by none of the Framers.”
This observation may be related to the issue that the 14th Amendment, which applies the Bill of Rights to the States (and does other things) was written and passed rather after all of the Framers had died.
“I don’t just stick a gun in my shorts. I carry in a Phlster Floodlight. I’m not a barbarian!”
Snub nose or bull barrel? Some folks like them some bragging.
I’m working on your book now. You were my husband’s favorite author and we always enjoyed discussing your books. He died a little over a year ago. He always loved your rants about gun control. Reading the book, I can hear some of his commentary in my head.
I’m so sorry for your loss, Kara.
Thank you Synova.
I just finished the book and it’s amazingly straightforward. Our son is planning to read it next.
What would be hilarious would be a special edition cover with some of these quotes. The ones that don’t make the cover could be used as opening or closing quotes to each chapter.
Comment on politicians.
In the 1980s David Boren (D) was a US senator for Oklahoma. I wrote him a letter expressing a pro firearm position on some legislation. His office sent back a standard printed letter that expressed the senators support for my opinion. (I did not expect a personal reply, this type of form letter was expected and acceptable)
But the office screwed up. They also sent me a printed letter that expressed the senators support for the other side of the same issue.
So no matter your view point the senators office sent a reply saying they supported you. As it turned out he did not support my viewpoint.
I have not voted for a Democrat since then. I have been a registered Independent since age 18.
I still express my opinions to my congress critters. Not happy with Republicans just feel I do not have a good alternative.
Comment on open carry.
A friend served in the first gulf war. He ended up escorting prisoners. He did not have a problem with them but he was prepared. He carried his M-16 in his hands, the safety was on, loaded magazine in place, NO ROUND in the chamber. If a prisoner grabbed for the rifle his plan was to simply allow the guy to take it. While the guy was figuring out to take off the safety and charge the rifle my friend would draw his loaded, cocked and locked personal Colt .45 from the shoulder holster concealed under his field jacket and shoot the person. An interesting combination of open and concealed carry.
The Left knows that people will not willingly get in the boxcars. Also, regarding gun control, they always say that if a law saves one life it’s worth it, but they are not about to rescind a law that costs lives. (Gun free school zone act, anyone?)
“I notice the concern troll reviews (I love the Second Amendment BUT…) always say that, then never name any of these pro 2A books they love. Go figure.”
That’s because they’ve already burned them.
While I recognize the benefits of the writer’s dojo series, they don’t do much for me. More of this stuff, please!
I’m surprised you didn’t get criticism for your deplorable portrayal of manatees as bloodthirsty killing machines. Save the Sea-cows!!! BLOOP!
Larry,
I am waiting patiently to read my pre-ordered copy. It delivered too late on the day I flew out of town, and now I’m sitting here in Flux, because my connecting flight back to Phoenix is routed through DFW, and they’re in the midst of the Icepacolypse or whatever they’re calling it. Can’t wait to absorb it, hopefully tomorrow!
Strangely, my own nonfiction work IN DEFENSE OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT, has received no comment nor notice, despite the widespread Leftwing movements forever attempting to quarter troops in private homes!
The arguments of these “Quarterers” are easily refuted, despite the utter lack of any case law on the point! And every time there is an overcrowding incident in the BOQ on base, these vultures clamor for quartering troops in private homes, before the hot racking is cold!
In all seriousness, if the Second Amendment were not the main hurdle standing between constitutional government and the desolation of the Brave New World Order, the enemy would not be fixated on it with such rapacious lust to destroy.
Well done, Mr. Correia! I am listening to the audiobook version.
However, within my lifetime there has been at least one successful 3rd Amendment Civil Rights suit, and at least one acquaintance who made Federal people back off by noting that he was an attorney and threatening a suit over his 3rd Amendment Rights.
You and George, below, may be interested in a modern evolution of the 3rd Amendment…
Look for “The American Hoax Is Called Freedom” at Blogspot (this site thinks that is SPAM)
OK, I posted a 5-star review, which will hopefully cancel out some troll’s 1-star review:
———————————
This book is basically an expanded and updated version of the author’s internet article ‘An Opinion On Gun Control’ which has been famous (and infamous) since the day it was posted.
Not much has changed in ten years. Larry is still debunking the same lies and delusions, methodically dissecting them and laying them out for all to see. He does a masterful job, in a clear and accessible manner. Every American should read this book and give careful consideration to the ideas.
Sadly, this book will not reach those most in need of it. Even if they read the words, they will not learn what they don’t want to know.
The ‘gun control’ supporters already know everything they want to know. They know that guns are evil and racist and scary and hated by all The Good People. They desperately crave the approval of The Good People, so any information in conflict with that knowledge must be instantly rejected lest they be made unclean. They know nothing about guns, and are proud of their ignorance. To learn anything about guns is to be tainted with Gun Evil — O the horror! ’Tis a fate to be avoided at any cost. They Must Protect The Essence Of Their Precious Ideological Purity!
Update: 2 days later, I can’t find my review. Has it been censored?
Update update: OK, my review wasn’t censored, it just took 3 days to post. Why other reviews post the same day, I don’t know.
We don’t censor people- I’m just sometimes busy doing other things.
No, no, I meant it didn’t show up on Amazon for three days. I should have been more specific.
Other reviews that were posted days after mine were visible immediately.
Ahh. Yeah they use some system that only makes sense to like one guy in IT somewhere…
“The dork who thinks only states have civil liberties…”
So the Democrats are back on the “states’ rights” kick?