Recommend a good book to me....


PDA






FTF
October 12, 2006, 12:40 AM
I'm within 5 weeks of finally getting my BS after 7 years now lol. So, I'm going to have an extra... say... 10 hours a week to reallocate to other things. 4 hours of shooting, 1 hour of THR, 1 hour of writing to any group who will listen and... 5 hours are left (4 lol, math is my last hurdle).

I read the thread about the constitution and yes, I have read it, but I'm no expert. Of course, I'm all about shooting and marksmanship, but I'm not ready to start with the 2a propaganda, or become even more paranoid with the US vs THEM mentality.

What I would like to start reading is a book that addresses how we are losing/have lost our fundamental rights as laid out in the Bill of Rights. I saw a page online, probably linked from here, where it listed all the court decisions and how they impacted our rights... where we lost 40% of our 2a rights because of Emerson or whomever, or 80% of our 1st amendment rights because of rulings on this or that. I think that is what piqued my curiousity. Nothing to extreme or one-sided.. just a good, honest discussion of the rights we had 250 years ago, vice those we have now....

Any suggestions? I know it's a tough question, but the political section at Barnes&Noble is way too big and too expensive for me to pick and choose via cover art.

TIA

If you enjoyed reading about "Recommend a good book to me...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
22-rimfire
October 12, 2006, 12:47 AM
Unintended Consequences by John Ross. You may have to order it and it is only available hardback.

Autolycus
October 12, 2006, 12:54 AM
Unintended Consequences is an excellent read. Check Amazon.com for deals.

Thin Black Line
October 12, 2006, 01:07 AM
Look no further than this:

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/everyman.html

Rather than look at what has been lost, focus on the history that
establishes the right in the first place.

RNB65
October 12, 2006, 01:13 AM
General of the Army. A bio of George C. Marshall. A wonderful book about a remarkable man. America's "forgotten hero."

http://www.amazon.com/General-Army-Ed-Cray/dp/0815410425/sr=1-2/qid=1160625693/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-8512907-3664738?ie=UTF8&s=books

Veritas
October 12, 2006, 01:33 AM
Ayn Rand: We the Living.

Rem700SD
October 12, 2006, 01:58 AM
Two books that are good/light reads by Judge Andrew Napolitano are Constitution in Exile, and Constitutional Chaos

The Judge you may have seen on Fox news.

Men In Black by Mark L. Levin

xd9fan
October 12, 2006, 03:08 AM
Unintended Consequences by John Ross
Look no further than this:

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/everyman.html
GREAT BOOK!!!

also "Nation of Cowards" BY Jefff Synder (if you are ready)
www.accuratepress.net/noc.html

El Tejon
October 12, 2006, 09:06 AM
I would third the recommendation for Mr. Halbrook. However, I would read all of his works--That Every Man Be Armed, A Right to Arms, Target Switzerland.

(The last does not fit your description but you will learn a lot).:)

Keith Wheeler
October 12, 2006, 10:32 AM
Jewish Resistance in Nazi Occupied Eastern Europe, if you can find it. It's not a what-if fiction based on what one person thinks might happen, this is it, the real stuff. How people fought in a real SHTF situation, and all the political back stabbing and non-sense that practically destroyed them.

How anyone could read this book and not come to the conclusion that individuals have the right to bear arms is beyond me.

Not quite what you are asking for, but it is a prime real example of what happens when people lose their rights. Written by some academic history type, the first few chapters where he goes over the history up to WWII are a bit dry, but the rest is incredible.

One of his conclusions: more Jews didn't fight back simply because they didn't have weapons.

Ben Shepherd
October 12, 2006, 10:34 AM
Read "A Nation of Cowards" by Jeff Snyder.

An EXCELLENT collection of essays on a variety of subjects related to personal responsibilities vs. socialism.

Taipei Personality
October 12, 2006, 10:53 AM
Ordinary Men (http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068/sr=8-1/qid=1160660604/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-0945278-6619107?ie=UTF8) by Christopher Browning for insight into how agents of a statist society will do the bidding of their masters, regardless of protestations to the contrary.

Flyboy
October 12, 2006, 12:56 PM
From Freedom to Slavery: The Rebirth of Tyranny in America (http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Slavery-Rebirth-Tyranny-America/dp/0312143427/sr=1-17/qid=1160666793/ref=sr_1_17/102-2824189-8740168?ie=UTF8&s=books), by Gerry Spence.

Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything (http://www.amazon.com/Go-Directly-Jail-Criminalization-Everything/dp/1930865635/sr=1-1/qid=1160666890/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2824189-8740168?ie=UTF8&s=books), by Gene Healy

You should also read The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist

Court decisions worth reading:
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez)
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London)
[/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland"]McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison)

Links are to Wikipedia summaries; I highly recommend reading the Court's opinions (including concurring and/or dissenting opinions, where available). McCulloch and Wickard are big-time cases in extending Federal power (particularly McCulloch).

You should also look up the trial of John Peter Zenger, and John Jay's comments in Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4.

hugh damright
October 12, 2006, 01:33 PM
We the States:An Anthology of Historic Documents and Commentaries thereon, Expounding the State and Federal Relationship by Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government

The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding by Eugene W. Hickok

MacPelto
October 12, 2006, 01:43 PM
Moral Rights and Political Freedom by Tara Smith

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Rights-Political-Freedom-Smith/dp/0847680266/sr=8-3/qid=1160670794/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-5101553-0521502?ie=UTF8

Mac

Art Eatman
October 12, 2006, 02:41 PM
See if there is a trade-paperback version of "Under The Gun" by Wright, Rossi & Daly. U. of Fla. Press, 1985. It's a survey of Florida's gun-control laws, interviews with violent prisoners at Raiford, and many other analyses of crime statistics and medical data about firearms effects. the authors have written other, similar books. Their conclusions are verified by the work of Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU and Prof. John Lott of the U. of Chicago ("More Guns, Less Crime").

Art

'Card
October 12, 2006, 03:52 PM
Cryptonomicon (http://www.amazon.com/Cryptonomicon-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0060512806/sr=8-2/qid=1160678559/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-8518868-4129553?ie=UTF8) by Neal Stephenson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Stephenson).

LeonCarr
October 12, 2006, 04:04 PM
Hunting For Handgunners by Larry Kelly and J.D. Jones.

Oops, sorry wrong thread :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Eleven Mike
October 12, 2006, 04:23 PM
How about starting with something middle-of-the-road or left-wing, just to understand what the dominant point of view is? That way you have a wider perspective, rather than just knowing the right-leaning or libertarian point of view. I'm a far-right extremist, myself, :) but reading only one point of view can lead to brain-washing oneself.

Before that, you should actually start with something that puts the Constitution and the Second Amendment in historical perspective.

I wish I could recommend books, but I am still hoping to do the above myself.

Rev. DeadCorpse
October 12, 2006, 04:29 PM
UC - John Ross

Probability Broach - L. Neil Smith

Black Arrow - Vin Suprynowicz

Enemies: Foreign and Domestic - Matt Bracken

V for Vendetta and the Watchmen - graphic novels. Alan Moore

Armed Response - Massad F. Ayoob

Hope - Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith

Zombie Survival Guide - Max Brooks

Good to be King - Michael Badnarik

Joe Gunns
October 12, 2006, 04:41 PM
ANIMAL FARM -George Orwell :)

Molon Labe
October 12, 2006, 04:52 PM
A Well Regulated Militia (http://www.awrmthenovel.com/) by John Carpenter (http://www.awrmthenovel.com/)

Molôn Labé! (http://www.javelinpress.com/molon_labe.html) by Boston T. Party (http://www.javelinpress.com/molon_labe.html)

Enemies Foreign and Domestic (http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com) by Matthew Bracken (http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/)

Unintended Consequences (http://www.john-ross.net) by John Ross (http://www.john-ross.net/)

1984 by George Orwell

Right now I'm reading A Well Regulated Militia (http://www.awrmthenovel.com/). It's been great so far. I highly recommend it.

Harve Curry
October 12, 2006, 04:56 PM
I think you would have to include "The Second Amendment Primer", by Les Adams, Paladium Press pub..
It's researches the history of the right to keep and bear arms from ancient times, Greece, early England, to now.
It is short and sweet and to the point.

ksnecktieman
October 12, 2006, 05:15 PM
FTF? I hope you can find what you are looking for, and if you do please share it here with us. There are some that claim there are 20,000 various gun laws on the books in this country, and it would be very interesting to see how and why they started.

I am one of the wild eyed radicals here that thinks it should be as easy to keep and bear arms, as it is to keep and bear books. No matter how many pages, no matter if it will fit in or is carried in a pocket, No matter what it is printed on. No matter if you slapped your wife, or smashed some mailboxes when you were young. (AND before anyone asks, I do think if a felon is released from prison, he has the right, too.)

I have read Unintended Consequences, and it is a great, and interesting book, with some historical detail in it, but it is not a legal research tool. I do suggest it for recreational reading.

I think any tenth grader should be able to read the 27 words of the second amendment, and understand that ANY restriction is "regugnant to the constitution".

Do you see anything that is vague, or confusing about this line?

Eleven Mike
October 12, 2006, 05:19 PM
I think any tenth grader should be able to read the 27 words of the second amendment, and understand that ANY restriction is "regugnant to the constitution".When you get to the eleventh grade, you might understand better.

ksnecktieman
October 12, 2006, 05:23 PM
Not much chance of thaat mike, I am 57, and I have five grandkids,, I hope That they are allowed to own guns when they grow up.

Eleven Mike
October 12, 2006, 05:27 PM
Don't be down, neck. It's never too late to learn.

FTF
October 12, 2006, 05:53 PM
Man, I didn't think so many people would list soooo many different books!

I ordered

Constitution in Exile... like 12 bucks used on Amazon, even for hardcover! I really like watching the judge every morning on Fox while I'm getting ready for work. I see him as a very upfront and honest person who actually cares about the law. Despite the fact he's on Fox, I really don't think he has an agenda... besides interpreting the law as it was written. But who knows, maybe after I read his book I'll think otherwise.

I'm also thinking about getting O'Reilly's Culture Warrior, but I'm a one book at a time person. He was just on Cavuto talking about the secular progressives and I agree with a lot of what he says. At work I have had a christmas tree up at my desk all year long, and I'm taking it down after Thanksgiving as a protest against the liberal agenda to eliminate Christmas and everything else our country was founded on. I'm not sure it's a good way to protest, but people always ask me while it's up and I at least get to share my views a bit. I'm not even religious, I just think that it worked so well this long... why change everything? It's just Christmas! You can't call it Winter Celebration or any of that crap.

BUT, thank you all for your suggestions! This was a helpful thread indeed!

Rev. DeadCorpse
October 12, 2006, 06:06 PM
When you get to the eleventh grade, you might understand better.

When you graduate the 9th grade, go back and re-read Art 6 para 2. :mad:

hugh damright
October 12, 2006, 07:24 PM
I think any tenth grader should be able to read the 27 words of the second amendment, and understand that ANY restriction is "repugnant to the constitution".

Do you see anything that is vague, or confusing about this line?

(1)Are Tenth Graders taught principles of constitutionalism such that that are aware that a Constitution frames a government and a BOR defines limits/principles of THAT government? Since the USBOR was intended to limit only the federal government, and the Second Amendment has never been "incorporated" under the 14th "Amendment", it doesn't seem to follow that ANY restriction on the RKBA is "repugnant to the Constitution".

(2)Can Tenth Graders define the terms "natural right", "civil right", "political right, "free State", and "limited federal government" ... and put the Second Amendment in the context of free States and limited federal government?

(3) Would a Tenth Grader know about the original State BOR's and their RKBA Amendments, and about the States' requests for the Second Amendment ... and would they know what the King did which caused the Colonies to originally make such declarations?

(4)Are Tenth Graders aware that police powers were reserved to the States and that gun control powers have always been viewed as coming under these reserved powers?

ksnecktieman
October 12, 2006, 07:44 PM
Hi,: You damright, I expected you to join us. We both understand that we are on opposite sides of the "right to keep and bear arms issue". I can accept that, I have many friends that like the way you think.

I DO understand that over the last two hundred years there has been a lot of changes in this world. the quill pen has been replaced with radio, and tv, and the internet,,,, and the muzzle loading musket has been replaced with the M16, and the squad automatic weapon. I understand that the founding fathers could not comprehend instant communication with thousands of people, and I understand that they could not comprehend fully automatic weapons.

You??? Were our children taught the english language? Then either allow them to read the original text, and try to understand it, or admit that you want something different than what they did when they wrote it.

HI Art,,, is that your GRANDMA??? She has blue eyes that are pretty to us old guys,,,, I will try to keep my hands off of my keyboard, from now on:S

HI GRANDMA:)

Eleven Mike
October 12, 2006, 08:44 PM
When you graduate the 9th grade, go back and re-read Art 6 para 2.The joke's getting old, I think. And aren't all corpses dead?

The statement that kicked off this little flame-fest:I think any tenth grader should be able to read the 27 words of the second amendment, and understand that ANY restriction is "regugnant to the constitution".
Which implies that simply reading the amendment by itself should impart perfect knowledge of its application.

I disagreed, which made Rev. Corpse very angry, yet he responded with:go back and re-read Art 6 para 2

So which is it? Is the second amendment self-sufficient, or must it be understood according to its constitutional context?

Kowboy
October 13, 2006, 12:46 AM
Geek Love

Great book.

Kowboy

grampster
October 13, 2006, 12:54 AM
Anything by Robert Ruark, especially The Old Man and the Boy stories.

Our own Matt Bracken has a two book (so far) series that will make you think.

Our own David Kantrowitz (Devonai) has a book called Reckless Faith (sci fi) and a soon to be published sequel Tarantula Nebula (I've got an autographed copy of the galley. :neener: )

Ben Shepherd
October 13, 2006, 10:25 AM
Also-

Farenheight 451- Bradbury

1984- George Orwell

A Brave New World- Aldous Huxley(first name spelled incorrectly I think)

Rev. DeadCorpse
October 13, 2006, 10:40 AM
So which is it? Is the second amendment self-sufficient, or must it be understood according to its constitutional context?

It "should" be self-sufficient. It often isn't. Mostly by those with a vested interest in making sure their beloved gun laws STAY on the books.

Art 6 Para 2 reads...

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Incorperation is entirely unnecessary. States ARE bound by the "general" prohibitions in the BoR unless otherwise noted as in the First. Further, anyone arguing otherwise has never read the Debates of the First Congress regarding the passage of the BoR, limits on government power in general, and the exact wording as it regards the doubts of the various State conventions ratifying it.

When they stated that "the Right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", they stated it as "We the People". Not "We the people say the FedGov can't do this". Not "We the people say the FedGov can't do this except through the commerce clause".

"We the People" clearly stated that the Right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. End of story. I know what the current legal "fiction" is. It is repugnant to individual Rights, the Constitution, and everything this Republic was supposed to stand for.

Rev. DeadCorpse
October 13, 2006, 10:48 AM
Are Tenth Graders taught principles of constitutionalism such that that are aware that a Constitution frames a government and a BOR defines limits/principles of THAT government? Since the USBOR was intended to limit only the federal government, and the Second Amendment has never been "incorporated" under the 14th "Amendment", it doesn't seem to follow that ANY restriction on the RKBA is "repugnant to the Constitution".


Incorperation is not necessary. Do Bills being passed into law require "incorperation"? No. Once properly voted upon and signed by the Executive they pass directly into law. Same for Amendments. Once the Congress and the State legislatures vote upon them, they take immediate effect. That is a principle of Constitutionalism you SHOULD have been taught as a 10th grader and that todays modern, SCREWED UP legal system needs to relearn.

Nor does the USBOR only limit the FedGov except where explicitly noted in the First Amendment. Everything else applies via Art 6 para 2 and the 10th. The 14th was only necessary to apply this to ALL US citizens as freedmen slaves were being denied the equal Rights of a US citizen.

Enough with the thread hijack.

New reading assignment though:

Elliot's Debates of the First Congress (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html)

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 10:59 AM
So, RDC, you continue to show that the Second Amendment ought to be read in the context of what the framers and their contemporaries had to say about it (Original Intent). So, now tenth-graders need to read not just the whole Constitution in order to understand Amendment 2, they need to read debates on that amendment? You seem to argue against yourself, but I agree with one of your positions.

Rev. DeadCorpse
October 13, 2006, 11:24 AM
So, now tenth-graders need to read not just the whole Constitution in order to understand Amendment 2, they need to read debates on that amendment?

Not at all. As I stated, if you read it as written, it makes perfect sense. If you start inventing sh*t against the plain meaning, THEN you require context. :banghead:

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 11:38 AM
GREAT BOOK!!!

I borrowed a first printing years back and almost failed to return it....:D

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 11:42 AM
:D

hugh damright
October 13, 2006, 12:23 PM
Nor does the USBOR only limit the FedGov except where explicitly noted in the First Amendment. Everything else applies via Art 6 para 2 and the 10th.
Such a construction is completely false. The USBOR was intended to limit only the US, the US Constitution doesn't limit the States unless is says "no State shall", and the supreme law of the land is the Tenth Amendment which says that powers not delegated to the US are reserved to each State.

dragongoddess
October 13, 2006, 12:36 PM
Well I would like to suggest Quantum Field Theory by A. Zee


As to the topic the 2nd amendment should be understood in relation to our Declaration of Independence.

hugh damright
October 13, 2006, 01:21 PM
I think any good book on the USBOR should cover the original intent and contrast our 14th "Amendment" view of things. I already mentioned one book which is called Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Another one is:

The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction by Akhil Reed Amar.

I have yet to read this one ... I think Amar accepts that the USBOR originally meant one thing and now it means something else, as if it is a living document, and that causes me to lose respect for the Author ... but I am under the impression that his book does help make clear two different views of the USBOR: an original view, and a post-civil war view.

Rev. DeadCorpse
October 13, 2006, 01:29 PM
Such a construction is completely false. The USBOR was intended to limit only the US, the US Constitution doesn't limit the States unless is says "no State shall", and the supreme law of the land is the Tenth Amendment which says that powers not delegated to the US are reserved to each State.

Wrong. "Law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" is every bit as clear as "shall not be infringed" is. Those debating this in the First Congress ratification arguments were quite clear on their intent.

The BoR was to be a list of minimum Rights protected from ANY infringement as stated. These Rights were considered fundamental to individual liberty and freedom. Since the States were ceding power to the Federal authority under teh dissolution of the Confederacy, they wanted to ensure that these Rights would never be able to be trampled on.

Decades later, the Race/freed slaves issue and Reconstruction saw a massive amount of twisting done to Constitutional first principles to keep "darky" from being considered an "equal" under the law. Such things have been compounded further due to Prohibition, it's repeal, the Drug War, and now the outright push for Socialism.

Yeah, it really does go back that far and things really have gotten that FUBAR. Don't promulgate the Myth. A Right is a Right. No matter where defined.

Thin Black Line
October 13, 2006, 02:50 PM
My first grader recently came home from school with some coloring
book pictures regarding the Bill of Rights. Very general stuff about speech,
religion, etc. No pictures of EBRs.....

JJpdxpinkpistols
October 13, 2006, 03:13 PM
One was by a THR participant, Michael Z. Williamson: FREEHOLD

The other was by John Ringo and Linda Evans: The Road to Damascus

I found Mr. Williamson's book to be EXCELLENT. I adored it. I am asking for a hardcover for my birthday. I want him to sign it. I want it enshrined in every school. I am gonna start donating paperback copies to every library. It is brilliant.

Damascus started slow, but gained speed, and by the end, it was very very well done, and bloody scary. No other way to describe the socialist dystopia described therein.

Taken together, they are perfect companions novels.

Taipei Personality
October 13, 2006, 03:29 PM
One was by a THR participant, Michael Z. Williamson: FREEHOLD
If you liked Freehold you'll love The Weapon, by the same author.

xd9fan
October 14, 2006, 03:53 AM
I think you would have to include "The Second Amendment Primer", by Les Adams, Paladium Press pub..
It's researches the history of the right to keep and bear arms from ancient times, Greece, early England, to now.
It is short and sweet and to the point.

ohh yeah...... I have this.....great book!!!!

DFW1911
October 14, 2006, 05:18 AM
I have a great read for you: Interpersonal Conflict by Wilmot and Hocker. Grab any addition you can.

Though the psychology in it is pretty complex, it's an easy read. Don't try to memorize it, just pick up a concept or two. Then re-read again...and again.

It's just my opinion, but a sharp mind is probably the greatest weapon of all.

Take care,
DFW1911

Thin Black Line
October 15, 2006, 04:53 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Draft-Military-Selective-Service/dp/0891418954/sr=8-1/qid=1160940637/ref=sr_1_1/002-7700324-6327249?ie=UTF8&s=books

From Publishers Weekly
The author of this lively but conflicted study, an ex–think tanker and Marine vet, is torn between libertarian impulses and a lingering social conservatism. "Conscription sucks so bad," he moans, yet he believes that "every American male should spend some time in uniform." (Women, too, he allows, despite grousing about "man-hating" feminists.) Gold (Take Back the Right) suggests that the army needs several hundred thousand more troops for its many missions, from hurricane relief to fighting wars and nation building. But he also considers conscription an intolerable, perhaps unconstitutional infringement of liberty, historically fraught with corruption, unfairness and malign social engineering. Gold squares this circle, not very persuasively, with a nod to the wisdom of the founding fathers and the nation's hoary citizen-militia tradition. People should have a choice of different commitments, he argues, from overseas deployment in the regular military to strictly domestic service in state militias—or no service at all, which would subject them to extra taxes. It's hard to see how this system would sustain a tough foreign conflict—but maybe that's the point, since Gold considers the Iraq War a disaster. He presents an engaging, down-to-earth take on the urgent problem of military manpower, without quite resolving it. (Sept. 19)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


Bought it today at B&N --he also sounds pro-2nd Amendment....

If you enjoyed reading about "Recommend a good book to me...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!