Thoughts on "Unintended Consequences"

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matt VDW

New member
Whew... I finally finished all 800+ pages of "Unintended Consequences". And now I'm not sure what to make of it...


WARNING! This thread will contain "spoiler" information about the plot of UC. If you haven't read the book, do yourself a favor and don't read this thread.


Trust me, you'll have a hard time making it through a book this thick if you know the ending.


OK, now I won't feel guilty about giving away the story. :)

The other problem with discussing this book is that it's necessarily going to involve topics, such as how to commit murder and get away with it, that are forbidden on TFL. I understand and support TFL's "take the high road" policy, but I think that an examination of the issues and tactics described in UC will be valuable enough to risk straying a little from the straight and narrow. If the thread turns nasty, I'll understand why it gets locked.

With that thought in mind, I'll wait to see if this thread remains unlocked for a while before I start posting about the book itself.
 
I bought UC from Amazon and I returned it. My problem with it was the way it protrayed gun owners as immoral perverts. The book was simply offensive to me. Granted UC was very well written and contained alot of very interesting information but the amount of sexual perversion was intolerable. I also think the ending was implausible. What president is going to honor the Constitution enough to acknowledge that the war against the BATF was appropriate?
 
Discussing such things with the intent to carry out the activities is conspiracy to commit murder. A person would be pretty foolish to engage in a discussion like that on a public forum.
 
TBeck...

No, discussing the contents of a fictional novel on a public forum is in no form, "conspiracy". That would make Oprah's book club guilty as charged.

Conservative...

Sent it back? "Immoral perverts"? You are joking right?

Sexual perversion? Do you realize what the majority of housewives read in the form of "love novels", or what they watch on television in the form of "soap operas"? The UC plot was MILD comparatively speaking.

There is another book in which I recommend often and I assure you there isn't any sex in it.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671023187/o/qid=957885097/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/104-7465077-4474833
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Discussing such things with the intent to carry out the activities is conspiracy to commit murder. [/quote]

That's why I'm trying to make it clear that my intent is NOT to commit, or incite others to commit, conspiracy, murder or any other crime. In fact, I think that the UC model of fighting tyranny with violence is flawed, and I'd like to share my reasons for thinking so in the hope of discouraging any Henry Bowman wannabes out there.

Also, aside from the political, moral and tactical questions raised by UC, there are some historical and technical ones of the sort often discussed on TFL. For instance:

Is it true that Joe Kennedy was a Nazi sympathizer?

Did Ted Kennedy really get busted for cheating on his college entrance exams?

Is it possible to develop a shoulder callus from long term rifle shooting?

Isn't it implausible that Henry Bowman, a geologist, and his dad, a history professor, would be wealthy enough to be able to buy oodles of guns and ammo and aviation fuel?

Have the real people who appear as thinly disguised characters (such as Richard Davis/"David Richards") said anything about their portrayals in UC?
 
I just finished re-reading mine, and I don't see what the fuss is. Sex? Surely you jest. I guess we all have our hypersensitive spots.

As for what really happened:
Yes, yes, very possibly (mine has bled enough from HKs paratrooper stock), and have you ever met Kent Lomont?
 
I've read the book twice, having gotten it when it first came out. As near as I can tell, the first half is a very reasonably accurate depiction of the history of gun laws.

Yes, Joe Kennedy was sympathetic to Hitler's Germany, although I doubt he had any inkling of the concentration camps. For that matter, many US citizens were sympathetic, during the early days of the regime. Look up "Bund" or "German Bund". Kennedy's views created many problems with England, for FDR.

Dunno about T. Kennedy's cheating, but I'm willing to believe it. :) However, I doubt John Ross' research was inaccurate...Grain of salt, maybe.

Callus would come from shooting without any shirt; at least what I call "callus" comes from direct rubbing or impact on skin. There could easily be a hardened area or "pad" built up, as with the hands of some karate folks.

Inventions and patents were the prime money source, not salaries.

Haven't heard anything about real life people's comments. Just dunno.

As to the ending: Well, he wanted it to come out "our way", insofar as defining a happy ending. His book, his deal. It's a novel, not necessarily a realistic picture of how any politician would actually react to being told, "No!"

Leaving out Henry Bowman's own enjoyments of horizontal recreations, his machinations with the gals insofar as "luring" were nothing unusual. Uncommon, maybe, but not unusual. The KGB used the technique rather frequently. "Sparrows" was the term, I believe.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book.

Regards, Art
 
I read it. Far as I'm concerned it expresses a concern (as the author expressed in the foreward) of the kinds of things that sometimes happen when individual freedoms are trampled on. I don't think the author or any of us here wants this to happen.
It does give an accurate representation of many laws that currently exist, laws that many people even in this forum would find surprising.
The murder of public officials is certainly not to be condoned, but read your history. It has happened for reasons similar to those in UC.
As far as the sexual content goes, 2 girls messin around together and Bowman sometimes in the middle. Yea perverse, Can I join in?

There were some morbid truths in the book that will set some people on edge, and when it gets to the point that we don't feel comfortable even discussing the merits of a controversial book like this on the forums our freedoms will be imaginary.



[This message has been edited by Zensho (edited May 09, 2000).]
 
Per Ted Kennedy's cheating scandal - I recall the huge flap over it, but none of the details other than he was caught cheating on exams at Harvard.

A small mention was made here (search for the word "cheating"): http://www.bostonmagazine.com/highlights/30yearwar.shtml

As for UC, I enjoyed it very much and was not put off by the sex in it. Is the outcome implausible? Most likely, but I feel Ross was trying to make the point that things can go very bad if those in power, even at the lower levels (e.g., the FAA and OSHA inspectors), don't start thinking about the consequences of their actions.

[This message has been edited by Mal H (edited May 11, 2000).]
 
I found the sex to be a bit over the top. It didn't seem necessary to the story and that wasn't the reason I purchased the book.

My real gripe with the book is the main characters. They weren't just good, they were perfect. He couldn't be a good shooter, he was the best shooter, pilot, geologist, etc. Tom Clancy does this sometimes too. Oh well.

I think the participation of joe schmoe at the end was pretty unrealistic. I don't think any more than 1% (most likely less) of gun owners would take the risk.
 
Can you say, "Rambo", or "Chuck Norris"?

That one might consider a book, or movie, as a basis for conspiracy plot is stretching it a bit. Though I think "Waco, Rules of Engagement" is dangerous to certain political environments, in that it raisies suspicions of wrongdoing. I don't think it has the potential to rally many people to vigilantism, or mass revolt.

The same reason the anti's have taken the posture that we, you & I, haven't the need for a firearm, simply because a book, or movie might have planted the seed of thought in our noggins.

A movie, or book, is of no danger in it's form. No more so than a firearm sitting in my hand, or on a table. It's the intent of the holder of that force, or knowledge, that might be dangerous. The potential exists for this, but that doesn't mean that it will.

The same potential exists for a car fuel tank to explode because it also has oxygen in it. Without some other drastic force involved, it's harmless.

Have I over simplified this?? Is it a bad anaolgy to use for this?

I thought UC was well written, it opened my eyes, if you will. I also think there is merit in most what Mr. Ross has presented. It's true that hogs will eat nearly anything presented to them. I once threw some Walnuts(American Black varirety) in a pen, and I heard all manner of crunching and popping. They ate them all!! I then realized a new respect for that critter...

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 
I have met and shot with John Ross several times. I know Dave Richards/Richard Davis, Bruce McArthur (muzzle brake inventor), Ed Seifert (the LEO from Troy, MO), and have shot with Kent Lomont and all of them know Ross. I don't think anyone of them had any problems with "being" in the book. I can't state that for sure, but none of them have punched Ross's lights out or sued him for having them in the book.

Regarding the source of Henry Bowman's money that allowed him to do all this, his family had invested in John Deere and he was the holder of several patents (if I remember correctly).

As to the eating habits of hogs, at one time there was asaying "He went to take a s!!! and the hogs ate him.", that saying just did not appear out of thin air. More than one farmer was knocked to the ground by hogs and then never was seen again. At least not in any form that appeared to have been human at any time.




------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
Things like this book are dangerous. . . especially the last couple of hundred pages.

Not for why you think.

Because of the types of people who think "man, when they cross that line in the sand, we're going to start fighting, there'll be war, etc."

Why? Because there won't. But that's not it, it's that this in itself is a form of complacency, that silly "I won't call my senator once a week; I'll just wait for the war."

Now, nobody wants a war, and there won't be one. . . . nobody wants to die over a gun. How about an ending where everyone joins GOA and floods their senators/congressmen with mail?


thanks,
Battler.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Battler
Things like this book are dangerous.[/quote]

This is the Central Scrutinizer… it is my responsibility to enforce all the Laws that haven’t been pass yet. It is also my responsibility to alert each and every one of you to the potential consequences of various ordinary everyday activities you might be performing which could eventually lead to The Death Penalty (or effect your credit rating).

Our criminal institutions are full of common people like you who do wrong things... and many of them were driven to these crimes by horrible forces called Books, Music, Video Games and the Internet.

Our studies have shown that these horrible forces are so dangerous to society at large that laws are being drawn up at this very moment to stop them forever! Cruel and inhuman punishments are being carefully described in tiny paragraphs so they won't conflict with the Constitution (which, itself, is being modified in order to accommodate THE FUTURE!

You have been forewarned! :eek:

------------------
CS
 
As someone who grew up in the St. Louis suburbs and still lives there, I can tell you that the first two thirds of the book are very real in terms of characters and places and ideas. The main character actually gets to do all the things that a teenager of the late 50's and early 60's dreamed about.
That world may have indeed been America's Golden Age, from a number of viewpoints. Though distrubing storm clouds could be seen on the horizon even in those days, few dreamed of a future that would not be glorious, progressive and free.
The real world has brought many cruel blows for the overconfident hubris of those days.
I will only say in this forum that the last third of the book, dealing with a fantasy mini-revolution that solves most of our problems in a quick and violent manner is, from my point of view, so seriously flawed from both a moral and political perspective that I don't think it should have been written.
But I will refuse to condemn the book. Its better to condemn the rulers whose sordid leadership of a great republic gave birth to such a twisted fantasy.
 
Now, nobody wants a war, and there won't be one. . . . nobody wants to die over a gun. How about an ending where
everyone joins GOA and floods their senators/congressmen with mail?


A GUN I THOUGHT WE WHERE TALKING ABOUT FREEDOM HERE OF WHICH FIREARMS ARE A PART.
I am willing like many others to die for freedom.

------------------
beemerb
We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world;
and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men
every day who don't know anything and can't read.
-Mark Twain
 
I think it is one of the most enlightening books on freedom since Ayn Rand. I've only read it about seven times. I have purchased about twelve copies to either give away or re-sell. I'm fairly careful who I give a copy to. Some wouldn't read it or like it and some might take it wrong. The people I have given it to have come away with a new found respect for freedom and an appreciation of how government takes away liberty.

As a gun guy, I found the technical stuff fasinating and the history enlightening. As a red blooded male the sex was OK too. The book would not have suffered without the sex.The overall effect was a book I read in four evenings.(I didn't get much sleep.)

The final section in the book was stated as fiction and I doubt any uprising would come off in exactly that fashion.

All in all, probably the finest work on freedom and what it means to be a member of the gun culture and an American.

Rick

------------------
I prefer armed combat to unarmed combat. It's easier on the knuckles.
 
I read UC in a day.

It was a loooong day, but I couldn't put it
down.

I've since read about 14 other books to check
the authors facts and have found them wanting
on more than just a few minor points.

One very significant piece of American
insurrection that wasn't included in the book
and is significant in it's omission was the
coal field war, West Virginia 1920-21 and the
Battle of Blair Mountain, to which we have to
thank for the 40 hr work week.

Anyone interested in armed insurrection in
these here United States would do well to research this.
Here you had the Police, public, private and state,
the National Guard and the Army fighting the
citizenry who of course lost big time. The mess of it
all was one bad idea after another stacked up so deep
that 50 years went by before it was all unravelled. The
miners didn't hate the Army, in fact, many of them were
vets. The Army didn't hate the miners. Martial Law was
declared, 3 counties in West Virginia were in open armed
insurrection. People were beaten, killed, murdered without
consequence, jailed without being charged, tried and
without bond, the press was totally censored and all
communications were controlled. Complete and total
martial law the likes of which Stalinist Russia only
dreamed.

Wrong or right mattered not at all, when it was obvious it
was totally out of hand, The president sent in the troops
and it was over. Period.

Funny how he didn't talk about that one.

I feel one of the reasons he didn't look into it was for one thing
the stories are sketchy, it is living memory for some, and
(this is a big and) No one behaved well. I mean NO ONE. The
Baldwin Felts men did murder, the miners did murder, the Baldwin
Felts men did mayhem, the miners did mayhem. The Miners did
kill, the State Troopers went out for revenge because they got
chased off during the day, so they came at night and did murder. Some of the
better "citizens" supporting the
law and order crowd were deeply corrupt
crooks hiding behind the law. How often
is that the case? No one was right, no one. And that is usually the case, which is why
taking up arms is usually a very bad idea without specific coherent goals,
and a LOT of organization, training, discipline and support. Anything else
is just a mob and mobs are capable of incredible evil regardless of
who they work for, what creed they pledge, or who their god is.
 
And not one of you mentioned something so obvious that it should have been your PRIMARY point of response!

Think of yourself as an elected official, a politician, a representative, a senator, a supreme court justice, a governor, or a president reading this novel. I've read the book twice, and I see it as a wake up call for politicians who should be the ones reading it. Did anyone send the book to their elected gun grabbing politician?

It certainly gives rise to most gunowners feeling bombarded by bureaucracy. And reactionaries would certainly enjoy participating in some actual "house cleaning". But, I've recommended this book to every gunowner/freedom lover I know...not to become a reactionary, but to see the message this book has for those that are supposed to be protecting our Bill of Rights, the politicians. And to send their copy to their district's biggest gun hater in Congress.

The unintended consequences of their anti-gun voting record will become blatantly obvious after reading this book. It might even make a few converts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top