Thoughts on "Unintended Consequences"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's popular with "our" crowd for much the same reason paperback romances are popular among women, or why adventure stories are (or were?) popular among boys (at least in my day). That may sound like a negative criticism, but it's not.

What sets it apart is that (like Ayn Rand's stuff, only moreso), UC is not only an interesting story, historical novel,
whatever, but also works as a history, a manifesto, and a "how-to" book. It's the "how to" part that's most disturbing.

It also highlights the idea that, whether we like to believe it or not, we're pretty much whipped dogs as far as liberty is concerned, and the chain gets shorter every year.

I think dog3 is correct about his leaving out the Battle of Blair Mountain (which was also fictionalized in a really good novel called "Storming Heaven" by Denise Giardina).
 
Matt, thanks for bring up this book. I have read it 2 times. List it as one of the top books I have ever read. Wanted to start reading it for the third time last Thursday and could not find it (I'm still looking).

My question: "Could anyone really shoot like Henry Bowman?" I think about his shooting of the 2 birds on his Africa trip with the bolt action rifle often.

I do recommend the book often to my shooting buddies. But I have not considered sending it to any of my legislators. Shucks, I'd feel like I was threatening them. I just think it's a good novel, with some insightful information.

Lastly, I too wish that John Ross would have left out the sleezy sex scenes, then I could recommend the book to many more folks. First thing I did was take off the paper cover, I was embarassed to read it during my lunch time with the cover in place. Again, it is one of the best reads for me, ever. --plinker2--

PS: Dog3, where do I find more books on the BATTLE OF BLAIR MOUNTAIN? Any besides STORMING HEAVEN, by Denise Giardian
 
One last comment or two then I'll shut up about this book.

I think part of the point Ross may have been trying to make with Henry's various "indulgences" is to not make him too mainstream, to sort of remind folks that the common bond they have in this struggle against tyrannical government is not similar lifestyles, religions, etc., but a simple commitment to and love for the Constitution, BoR, and freedom to do pretty much do what you want without outside intereference, so long as you don't hurt anyone and pay your own way. If that really were our first priority, then all pro-freedom, pro-civil rights groups would be allies. A true freedom coalition would result in some pretty unlikely "bedfellows" hehe.

Yeah, Henry seems a little too good to be true as far as shooting skills go. I think part of that is the fact that he's supposed to be a hero of sorts, part is the fact that, as good a shot and strong a person as he is, he still gets attacked by those four "Deliverance" extras, which dovetails into the "rape of justice by the government" theme meant to characterize our current "position," as it were (so, if they can do it to the best, they can do it to the rest), and part of it is just to appeal to an audience that likes good shooting and nice guns.
 
I found the book enjoyable, and thought provoking.

I had the honor of meeting John at the '99 SHOT show. Nice guy, and totally politically incorrect. If I ever happen into a ton of money, I'll call him, to see who he recommends as a financial advisor.

I disagree that this book portrays gun owners as "immoral perverts". I thought it portrayed them as people, many of them good, thoughtful, loving people that I would bleed with, if need be.
 
OFF TOPIC:


The West Virginia Coal Field War,
The Matewan Massacre and
the Battle of Blair Mountain have
been covered fictionally a couple of times.

A beautiful book called Storming Heaven
was written Denise Giardina is a really
fine short novel. This is one you can give
your spouses and older children, it does get
pretty adult from time to time. Women authors
do that :).
It is a fictional account that takes place
in the time and place of the Coal Field War
of 1920-1921.

ISBN 0449004910

Film maker John Sayles, (Lone Star, Limbo)
hitch hiked through that part of West Virginia back in 1970 and interviewed folks
and put together his screen play, Matewan from his own imagination, interviews and eyewitness accounts of the Matewan massacre. It's a definate must see on behalf of anyone who is interested in American Insurrection. The story is mostly true, the principal characters are taken from fact and potrayed
pretty accurately by historical records.
Hero and Marytr Sid Hatfield is not exactly
the calm and quiet fellow Sayles made him out
to be, but genuine hero he was. I'd have
been proud to shake Sid Hatfields hand, yes
Sir I would. Ran a fine gun store too. One of those evil gun stores, sold Krags and such.

Matewan is available at Blockbuster.

Lon K. Savage, historian and writer and
native of West Virginia wrote what is commonly held to be the most comprehensive account of the Battle of Blair Mountain in his book Thunder in the Mountains, The West Virginia Coal War, 1920-21. ISBN 0822954265

Of particular interest to this group would be how gun laws were used to attempt to manipulate the people. The intense collaboration of the Sheriffs of Logan and Mingo counties used gun laws to attempt to disarm the miners so they would be unable to stand against the gun thugs (Baldwin Felts detectives), Sid Hatfield, chief of Police of Matewan tried to use gun laws to keep the Baldwin Felts under control. None of this had any effect whatsoever. When will we ever learn?

This book is a very good overview, well balanced account of the happenings of that day. It includes the fledgling Army Air Corps early plans of quelling civil unrest by using bombers dropping gas and h.e. Pretty tough folks those airmen. Anyone who had any doubts about whether or not the "gubbmint" has qualms about bombing civilians after Dresden, Hirosima, and the current horrors of eastern europe will do well to read this early account.

A broader overview of the violent miners uprising across Appalachia is found in
Howard B. Lee's "Bloodletting In Appalachia:
The Story of West Virginia's 4 Mine Wars and
Other Thrilling Incidents in its Coal Fields" ISBN: 0870120417
Mr Lee's book is a bit more sensationalist than Mr Savages but it does cover a lot more territory and history.

Anyway, thats all I've read.
 
Was anyone else bothered by the story about Billy Dell, the drag racer, and his "Paul Bunyan" revenge against the cop who sabotaged his car?

I guess the point of the story was supposed to be that cops who operate outside the law deserve to be "dealt with" outside the law. That's a sticky moral issue to start with.

But what sort of moral code permits crippling and partially blinding a man for life in retaliation for damage done to a piece of property? I think that's abhorrent, yet Henry Bowman and company seemed to think that Billy Dell had the right idea.

I also thought that Henry Bowman's 140 mph drive on the freeway in his GMC "Typhoon" was a bit much. Did he really have a good reason to be driving that fast and endangering other motorists? It seems to me that passing another fast car just for kicks isn't a very good reason.

And then there was Henry's "arrest" of the undercover BATF agent who tried to entrap him at the gun show. Granted, what the agent was trying to do was wrong. But did that justify holding him at gunpoint? And wouldn't Henry have had some legal problems as a result?
 
On BATFuxxer at a gun show...that's called "a dose of his own medicine."

On Banyan...I'd say that rogues abusing their authority deserve all that they get. It is not, however, expedient to adiminster the punishment in most cases. Also, I am not sure if that cop was abusing his authority or merely doing criminal deeds in his spare time without the protection of the badge.

No opinion on speeding except that arificial speed limits have good and bad sides (see the German solution of highways w/o speed limits). I am not qualified to judge but suspect it was OK so long as his driving skills and vehicle were up to it. Called "using your judgement", same as using firearms.

[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited May 10, 2000).]
 
I too bought several loaner copies, wonderful trip down memory lane in the gun culture. The comments here are suprising, I thought there would be more enthusiasm but even gun owners are brainwashed with the government/media PC mindset. To have concerns about endangering the public by speeding in a fictional story or crooked LEOs getting their do? We all are old enough to remember Waco I hope, has any LEO ever attemped to arrest those responsible for the deaths? The book UC was a breathe of fresh air although a bit heavy with kosher overtones. The Book Don't Shoot The Bastards Yet by Clair Wolfe is interesting also. henry
 
To 6forsure: You didn't ffind it a "page-turner" I'm afraid that it didn't start out with the action, true, but Ross had to lay the historical background so that the reader would know why Henry Bowman and others were the kind of people that they were. That they had been raised in freedom and responsibility all their lives, and would NOT allow that freedom to be taken away! My copy is on loan-out at the moment, and I am going to buy two more copies for the same purpose. crankshaft
 
Henry's shooting skills were a wee bit over the top, but the references to Ad Topperwein's feats made it more plausible. I remember reading in the preface or somewhere else that all of the shooting feats described in the book were possible.

I found the part about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising to be fascinating. To have any hope of survival, these pacifists, who knew zilch about guns, had to kill their German captors one at a time and capture their weapons, and then learn how to make them work. It wasn't murder, it was war.

And when Henry killed those rednecks who were raping that girl, it was justifiable homicide. To paraphrase a line from a Clint Eastwood movie, "They needed killin'" He saved that girl's life. I was initially bothered by the fact that he ran off and didn't report it, but I think it was because he didn't want to be hailed as a hero, and not because he didn't want to be caught for doing anything criminal. Backwoods justice?

I think these incidents (among many others), set the stage for the ending of the book... that sometimes the taking of lives is necessary to save lives. Cops often make that decision every day. Truman made that decision when he dropped atomic bombs on Japan. We can identify with everyday life-and-death decisions cops make, and I would venture to say that we would agree that the U.S. did the right thing to end the war with Japan... in the end it saved lives.

But, there seems to be some difference of opinion on whether what Henry Bowman did in the end was justified. Did his actions save lives in the long run, or was he a murderer? I guess it would depend on your perspective. To King George, George Washington was a rebel and a traitor and a murderer.

Let the reader decide. I've enjoyed reading all your comments on the book, and I think I'll read it again.
 
To CS: What does that stand for, Chicken S**t? Who the heck do you think you are? Get a life, buddy. And go read UC again. It's a dangerous book, alright, and I'm damned glad. A friend (who alos happens to be a Moderator here) loaned me his, and I read it twice before returning it; I'll be forever greatful to him for his understanding in letting me keep it so long. I just had to get another copy afterwards, and it alreay is covered in margin notes, etc.

I think it's a great idea to send copies to your legiscritters and Congresscritters....anonymously, of course. Just sign the letter, "A Voting Constituent" :)

I've read it 4 times, and as soon as I finish the latest Cussler novel, I think it's due for a re-read.

Keep in mind, historical data indicates that no more than 5 to 7% of the colonists actually fought in the Revolution, and at that time, the population of the colonies was about 800K. There are 70M gun onwers in the US, and if only 3% are militant, well....you do the math.

------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 45King:
To CS: What does that stand for, Chicken S**t? Who the heck do you think you are? Get a life, buddy.
[/quote]

Play nice, folks. If you feel provoked, try not to rise to the bait. We are (almost) all allies here.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The comments here are suprising, I thought there would be more enthusiasm but even gun owners are brainwashed with the government/media PC mindset.[/quote]

Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed UC and I don't consider the money or the time I spent on it wasted. I thought the historical background was terrific and the technical/legal details were very accurate, as far as I could tell.

I'm just not sure that I can embrace UC as a statement in defense of the gun culture. There are some elements and sections of the book that make me reluctant to share it with friends or donate a copy to the local library.

But as long as I'm being PC, let me whine a little about something else ;) :

The stereotypical portrayal of the black women (one of the BATF agents who raided Allen Kane's home, one of the BATF agents killed in Ohio and the BATF agent who inspected Orville Crocker's collection) in the book bothered me.

First of all, I doubt that more than 5% of the agents in the BATF are black women, yet the percentage in UC is probably three times that. Why the disproportionality?

Secondly, the black women were all rather pathetic. "G.G." had a ridiculous name, was fat, and gave up easily. The last agent didn't know how to handle a pistol, had silly fingernails, and reverted to "ghetto talk" when injured. Why? Was this supposed to show the incompetence resulting from federal affirmative action policies? Or was the reader supposed to regard the women as victims of the general oppression of blacks by the welfare state?

The foul language in the book bothered me, too. I can see the mobsters, the rednecks, and the BATF grunts using vulgar language, but weren't Henry and Ray supposed to be well-read, well-educated, intelligent men?

OK, I'm ready to be flamed now. :)
 
The real ending of UC would be that Henry Bowman died of lead poisoning from all of ammo he expended as a youth and as an adult.

His ammo expenditure was so exaggerated that he would have developed carpal tunnel syndrome and lead poisoning. :)
 
Um...well, actually, I'm not going to tell you how many birds John told he shot in Central America! (But it was more in one trip than I'll shoot in a lifetime!)

I admired "GG" for being more resolute than the head fed on the scene. Were I Henry Bowman, I would respect her memory, at least once a year.
 
Whoa! Whoa! 45king (like the name, by the way). I think that CS's post was a clumsy attempt at sarcasm, or just a stupid troll.

I used to like Cussler, but I think his recent books have kind of a "going through the motions" feel to them. They all follow the same formula as Hollywood now. The early ones at least had better character development.

To veer back on topic. I liked UC a lot. My copy is currently out on loan, but I hope to get it back soon. As historical fiction, it was a great piece to put to words the frustration members of the gun culture feel and a one-stop chronicle of the incrementalism we've all been suffering under. I guess that's why I liked it so much. I also didn't feel that the gratuitous sex scenes (as opposed to the sex used as part of an assasination) were necessary, but the book was strong enough that they didn't detract from the overall message. I too tossed the cover posthaste. I don't have anything against bare breasts, but frankly, the cover was just silly. Maybe the next printing could have a picture of a Solothurn on it? ;)

[This message has been edited by Gopher a 45 (edited May 11, 2000).]
 
I had to put the cover up too. Little kids around and all. My wife wanted to throw it away!!!! She let me keep it, though :)

My main gripe was that the Feds' response was so limited, and that the whole objective was so easily accomplished. Then again, anything's possible.


[This message has been edited by Chris in AL (edited May 11, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The real ending of UC would be that Henry Bowman died of lead poisoning from all of ammo he expended as a youth and as an adult.[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing! ;)

When Henry got the moulds to go with his .44 Magnum and he cast several thousand bullets before bedtime, I thought, "That's an awful lot of lead to be melting in an unventilated basement".

I also wondered why he took his 8.4" M29 on the canoeing trip with his friend when he had a 5" M29. I'd much rather carry the shorter gun in a belt holster for any sort of backwoods excursion.
 
Is UC dangerous? I hate to anewer a question with a question.

Was "Helter Skelter", by the Beeltes dangerous? Were the lyrics in the song what caused The Family to perform the Tate LaBianca murders? I mean is was a popular sone with a select group. And Charles Manson saw that he could use something to motivate others' to do his bidding, or so were told.

Has anyone read the book bt Stephen Hunter, "Point of Impact"? Is that story, and the predecessor, "Dirty White Boys", a bit over the top? Both good reads IMHO. Teaches some things, and suggests many things. But then, it's a fictional story...I hope.

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top