Customer Reviews

Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

Amazing that anyone would believe its overall message, that is. The authors ignore or revise over 200 years of history to suit their purposes, add in misleading, inaccurate and discredited statistics, and miraculously reach a conclusion that, given their personal affiliations, might appear to be predestined. This book is little more than a hit piece on a Constitutionally acknowledged right that they disagree with.

[...]

I read this book hoping to find new ideas to challenge my (admittedly very strong) pro-gun beliefs. I enjoy seeing what other people have to say on the subject, especially when they are saying things I disagree with. The best (perhaps the only) way to hone your ideas and beliefs is to challenge them. Unfortunately Mr. Horwitz's book mostly rehashes old arguments and where he does try presenting 'new' ideas usually they are historically dubious or else they merely address straw men that he throws up.

Overall this book was a disappointment.

This book will be loved by the anti-gun crowd and hated by the pro-gun crowd. That is the general nature of books of this type. To be fair, I have a stong opinion on this subject, and am less that unbiased. However, It is not a proper scholarly work, and cites multiple sources that have been discredited in academia. I would hope someone would attempt to challenge my believes using this book, as it would be easy to deflect the criticisms with facts. Truth be told, you can make any argument sound good by picking facts. This book didn't even bother with picking solid facts.

I am not supposed to link in this review, so for a source I will give you the following citation: JIAFM, 2007 - 29(4); ISSN: 0971-0973

Women who employ:
-Non-forceful verbal resistance strategies (i.e. pleading) were associated with completion of the raped in 96% of instances.
-Forceful verbal resistance (i.e. screaming) was associated with completion of rape in 45-55% of instances.
-Attempted flight was associated with completion of the rape in 15% of instances. (Only a fraction of women were even in a postion to consider flight, i.e. not thrown to the ground).
-Forceful physical resistance was associated with completed rape in 14% of instances.
-Weapons use in forceful physical resistance(knives/guns)were associated with completed rape in <1% of instances.

This book gives an account of guns' role in the American Revolution, post-Civil War reconstruction, and the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Fascinating stuff. I never thought about guns in historical terms. I bet few people on both sides of the debate read up on history very much. But if they did they'd see a lot of fallacies in the pro-gun logic. The book's basic point is this: Tyrannical movements and governments, given the violence they are willing and able to inflict, can't be stopped (without simply replacing one tyrant with another) by mere citizen gun-owners, yet weapons in the hands of "citizens" have often been turned against a nation, resulting in tyranny by the insurrectionists themselves, or just anarchy. This is not to say guns don't have a use for self-defense, but the book shows how guns preventing tyranny is just a bunch of bonk.

I think the measure of this book's power might be the number of negative reader reviews it gets. The more pro-gun people who criticize it, the better it must be doing!

The authors description of the history of guns usage in the U.S. and the context of the Second Amendment is worth the price of the book.

Understanding the ideology behind the Insurrectionist Idea helps to make sense of recent events that otherwise are hard to understand, such as the strident opposition by some to the ban on automatic weapons, guns that go far beyond what anyone needs for personal protection. The wearing of guns to some of the anti-health care rallies last summer is another example of something that only makes sense when the ideology behind the behavior is made evident.

One of the most interesting and unsettling parts of the book is the description of the demise of Smith and Wesson and the American Shooting Sports Council, as a result of actions taken by the NRA. The treatment of Jim Zumbo, a long-time writer for hunting publications, who dared to speak up and not to follow the NRA's othrodoxy, shows the basic anti-democratic strain in the Insurrectionist Ideology. This element should be of particular concern to anyone interested in living in a democratic, pluralistic society.

The book is a significant contribution to the public debate on this important issue.

Horowitz's extremely biased diatribe is a fine example of what is wrong with the First Amendment. Unfortunately, it butchers the Second Amendment to an even greater degree. The most important reason that "We, the People" need to know about this book is that any scholarly document that quotes from this book, is a tome from the Nanny State collective.

The sad thing is that this book can be found in a land fill near you.

Book isn`t exactly a hot bed of truth. The authors bias clearly shows his anti attitude against those who are perfectly legal and right in what they do and believe.

He even throws in the old battle cry of the anti gunners "the gun show loophole" , well if anyone bothered to check they would find that the same laws apply at a gun show that apply everywhere else. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

This is a one sided book written by a firearm prohibitionist. One star review, for a 0 star book.

This is an excellent book for anyone interested in history or political science, particularly as it relates to government and armed citizenry. Its history of guns in America and elsewhere is unbiased and fascinating, and the arguments on the dangers of guns cogent. It is especially relevant now, with the controversy over the right to, and the use of, guns by civilians. I strongly recommend it unless you have already made up your mind that there should be no limits on guns, and even then you might find the history informative.

Pure agenda based drivel in this book. The author has his own ideas about how he thinks things should be, and he does not allow facts to stand in his way. Much revision of, or completely ignoring, relevant history. If that wasn't enough, he will make up his own facts to try to influence others his direction. Complete waste of money.