Title: Misrepresentation of the Facts
Product review: The language in this book is verbose, hard to read, one almost has to be a college professor to understand it. Once you do get through it, you find that the authors, while putting forth facts about the concerns between maintaining a militia and not having a large standing army, totally ignore facts that show that the intent all along, of both federalists and anti-federalists, was to protect a pre-existing, God given right of individuals to keep and bear arms, for any reason, including hunting and self-defense, but most importantly to resist a potentially tyrannical government. They also repeat standard gun control arguments, e.g. the word "bear" only had a military context when it came to firearms, even though the minority report from Pennsylvania expressly requested an amendment that would protect the individual's right to "bear" arms for hunting. Such is the nature of books with an agenda, spinning facts and propagating half-truths and lies.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
