((Another one from the Book of Faces. Review in italics, Larry’s words in bold
– Jack))
I love obvious horseshit reviews, like this recent two star for In Defense of the Second Amendment. đ
Adam
VINE VOICE
2.0 out of 5 stars Preaching to the choir …
Reviewed in the United States đşđ¸ on March 20, 2023
I’m surprised by how many 5 star reviews this book has. I’ll start by saying that I am extremely pro 2A (RKBA is a natural right and I believe almost all existing gun regulations are unconstitutional and immoral and should be overturned). I listened to this book not because the 2A needed defending in my mind, but because I was hoping for a succinct, well articulated argument wherein I could recommend this book to people I know who are fence sitters, or even democrats open to gun rights.
I’ll start by saying there isn’t a original argument in this book – all of his arguments will be familiar to anyone who’s remotely up to speed on various gun regulations and the arguments for or against. It’s not particularly well written. Worse though, he comes across as extremely antagonistic towards anyone not in the pro 2A camp – democrats and anti gunners are repeatedly dismissed as idiots. While I may agree with that and you may agree with that, that’s not a tact willing to win anyone over.
If you’re already pro 2A and you’re looking for opinions that agree with yours, you may get some satisfaction out of this if not a particularly productive use of your time. If, like me, you’re looking for something you can recommend to people who are fence sitters, people new to or unfamiliar with guns, anti-gun people who may be open to changing their minds etc., this is a terrible choice, and insomuch this book does an enormous disservice to the pro 2A cause. A book that only caters to those who already agree with its unoriginal arguments is a waste of time, and listening to this was a waste of mine. Don’t recommend.
##
There’s a few clues here for just how full of shit this particular reviewer is.
There’s no NEW ARGUMENTS. Well, considering we’ve been having this exact same debate for our entire lives, and I respond to every single anti-gun talking point that they’ve used over the last 30 years… duh.
That’s also total bullshit, because I specifically have sections about relatively new issues, like red flag laws, “ghost guns”, and pistol braces.
But they aren’t ORIGINAL arguments? Oh? Because what kind of spicy new hot take do you expect someone to come up with for a topic that has been argued about by millions of people for decades? I suppose I could pull something unique out of my ass. đ
Sad part is, some of those points he’s calling old and unoriginal–because they’ve been well known and repeated for years–I’m the one who originally wrote them and made them go viral with the public back in 2012. So I get zinged for using famous stuff, that I came up with! Â
You can’t really have unique and original responses to a tired playbook that’s been in use for decades. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. For example, look at the news this week. I predicted every single thing they would say and do. They’re super predictable and rarely surprising.
He was really hoping that this would be a book that he could recommend to the people who hate guns and want to ban them… only I poked holes in their ideas and pointed out how dishonest and stupid they are, and that’s just mean.
The bit about being my being antagonistic to anti-gunners, again, duh. It is a book responding to their endless lies and attacks. However he also manages to leave out that I very specifically go into how there are different kinds of people who are against guns, and I specifically differentiate between the well intentioned masses who are being manipulated and lied to, from the blood hungry vultures who profit off of death.
Apparently he’s super pro-gun but doesn’t like people being honest about the politicians and media who make a living off trying to destroy those rights. People who I demonstrate through their own words and actions, are saddened when fewer innocents die. How rude of me.
As for not winning anyone over, it’s been doing rather well, and feedback from the actual fence sitters is positive (as opposed to the perpetually offended disingenuous types who believe in the 2A buuuuuut). Again, the bullshit reviewer purposefully leaves out the part that not all anti-gun people are the same, and they arrive at their beliefs for different reasons. Writing a book catering to all of them that would give offense to none, would an exercise in blending oatmeal. Â No thanks.
The bit about not being well written? Lol. In the words of Boyd Crowder, I’ve been accused of a great many things, but inarticulate ain’t been among them. đ
