Thanks for the reply John. It was rather unexpected as authors normally let severe criticism go away by itself. However, your reply is not unwelcomed. For me it is rather telling.
The story you have written in UC is a good premise. In fact, the first half or more of the book up until (about) "War" is fairly riveting and very entertaining.
For me, the book soon after became unrealistic. Without nitpicking specifics, I saw no point in the framing of politicians or in much of the sexual content. A great deal of it didn't further the story at all. I'll give one example... the young bisexual woman riding in the back of Henry's car with him and Cindy apparently begins to strip in the car and is subsequently reprimanded by Henry. This is but one
minor example among many of scenes that did not further the story, but were only a diversion. I found myself fighting the urge to skip ahead on several occasions.
Again, I have no problem with sexual content. But in the case of UC, a great deal of it took away from the story in that it seemed useless.
This is just a critique of the book. You've written a story that is certainly better than most and is certainly not pulp fiction. Alot of it does ring true and is very plausible. For example, Henry's defense of Kane's home. I was riveted there. But after that the protagonists descend into a murderous killing spree that, given the context presented in the book, seems completely unrealistic. The killing of
elderly retired officials was completely unwarranted and shows the players to be no better than thugs out for revenge.
Now on the other stuff...
You and I obviously travel in different circles.
I agree. The world which you describe is completely foreign to me. I live in a very racially diverse area (one of the largest cities in America and near the Mexican border), and even then I find the stereotyping rather unpalatable.
As well, you seem to imply that stripping is an honorable profession by the simple fact that it raises capital very quickly. I disagree. Gaining wealth at the expense of ones self respect is not acceptable to me unless it is under desperate circumstances. Money is not the center of the universe. Or my universe anyway. If I were to counsel a young woman who was deciding between a $40k a year job in an office, or a $150k a year job striping, I would
strongly counsel her in favor of the office job. I am keenly aware of the fact that I may be wrong on this, but my impression of you is that you would counsel her the other way.
(As a side bar, I do in fact feel that stripping is somewhat degrading to the stripper and does objectify them. However, I am also in favor of a woman's, or man's, freedom to choose to objectify themselves. Sacrificing some dignity for cash is a choice anyone is free to make, and I'm all for individual freedom.)
I did the search you suggested and found what I think you wanted me to find (a letter to the ATF from your attorney,
currently posted on Free Republic. My apologies, but just I don't believe it. At best I think it may be a marketing tactic for your book. At worst, full blown paranoia. I'll concede that it's possible. But not plausible. Without proof of such thing I cannot bring myself to buy the story. Other more high-profile authors such as Clancy (mentioned) have written content much more deserving of gov't scrutiny, and yet only you get harassed? I'm sorry. I can't buy that without more evidence.
Finally, I said it before and I cannot apologize for it. I view your book as somewhat damaging to the gun culture in America. It suggests that these people are typical gun people. It suggests that American gun owners are a murderous lot that will flip at a moments notice and begin gunning down entire families in their front yards if they feel at all wronged. It paints us as a vengeful bunch that will mow over everyone to get what we want.
Now keep in mind, I take little issue with the gov't reading your book. I fully suspect that UC, for the most part, didn't really stick out among the multitude of similar content that is published all the time. No, I don't think UC has damaged us in the eyes of the gov't at all. I doubt they even blinked. What concerns me is that UC damages us to the general public. You're book gets around, and I suspect it has a great deal of readership beyond gun people. It worries me that these non-gun people may read UC and get the idea that Bowman and Caswell as typical of gun people. The book content by itself is just a story. But it is given real-world weight by you suggesting in your introduction that this is a very close proximity. Nobody ever thought that Stephen King was suggesting that we actually make criminals run for their lives in his short story "The Running Man". But then Stephen King didn't write an introduction implying it was the real deal or these were typical people, eh?
You've written a good book, John. Overall I am not disappointed in having read it. I just see several problems which I have described above. That said, and while I am not likely to read UC again, I am likely to read your next effort.
Carry on.
-T.
P.S. The Internet thing didn't ruin it for me. It just stuck in my mind because in such a fantastically well researched book, this was such a glaring inaccuracy. It stood out like Shaq at a... well, wherever he goes really. 
)
