Law Books

Family Wealth is an area in small and meduim size business that has lept to the front of issues facing their firms. As the baby-boom generation decides how an when to step aside Family Wealth should be a must read book on the topic of asset protection and family relationship.

This book is useless except for dysfunctional families (who won't read it and wouldn't take the advice).

This is the BEST book I have found (after looking a long time) to instruct those who understand AND believe in themselves in how to perpetuate their ideals.

While I may not fully share the author's bias (clearly described in an opening chapter), I emphatically endorse his diagram for perpetuation. This book is a treasure map for the future.

Gotta run.....hunting for treasure, y'know....

This is a must read for those of you who have or plan to have over $5 Million in Net worth. If you want to fulfill your responsibility to your family and give them the tools necessary to carry on your legacy, this is a great starting point.

Buy the 2004 edition published by Bloomberg Press and don't waste your money on this. The 2004 edition has much more material.

Geneen has great insight in to why we overeat and what is behind the whole thing.
She uses real life stories from her life and others to help you see that we are not so differant after all and you can change.

Buy this book. Geneen Roth is an insightful writer who gives personal experience along with client experiences to reveal issues of her own yet relate it to others. Excellent.

Wow,wow,wow. I purchased this book because it was suggested to me from a friend about a year ago I finally bought it and I am so glad I did. I am a very skeptical person when it comes to self help books, but I have to say this wasn't a self help book at all. Roth makes you truly examine yourself by sharing her story and then asking questions that make you think about why we do the things we do (eat). What feelings are we surpressing? THIS BOOK IS NOT A "HOW TO GUIDE" - it just tells her story and other people stories and I bet anyone could find a piece of themselves in this book. It was funny and light hearted, not drab and psychological. I loved it so much I couldn't put it down and I ended up ordering 2 more of her books - Breaking Free of Emotional & Compulsive Eating.

If nothing else, the book is a great read. I highly recommend it.

I am not known for my reading abilities but this was an "easy" read!
Sometimes, Geneen seemed to go into a lot of "personal" stories that might seem like she was losing tract of the purpose of her book. I was often able to see the reason behind it as she was trying to drive a point across by relating her stories (and others') so that the reader can see the relationship between food and love. Overall, I think there were some very good points that she brought out that I never would have seen or thought of had it not been for this book.

I don't have anything new to add to the other 5 star reviews as I agree with ALL of them!

This is the most repetative book I have ever read. Just reading the intro to any chapter is all you really need, within the chaper, the author will state the exact same thing 3-5 times. I give it three starts because there is a lot of good information, it is just not well presented.

This book was a required text for my PA course. It was very wordy and at times difficult to understand due to the repetitious content. I feel that there is probably a more straight forward style of writing than this one. Not for the student who is just beginning a public administration course, some back ground would be helpful if this text is to be used. However, it contains "Introduction" in its title. Well! I 'don't know about that? Great info, however, difficult reading.

This was a required text book for one of the classes in my master of public administration program (MPA). I found it to be extremely useful for understanding both the historical evolution of public administration and the current practice. The emphasis on the (sometimes conflicting) managerial, legal, and political perspectives of each aspect of public administration works nicely if you are also learning the Hamiltonian, Madisonian, and Jeffersonian perspectives on the founding of the government. I always find it useful to understand and remember how things work if I get a good explanation of why it is so--this book does a good job of balancing the how/why.

It's not a text for the casual reader, but if you are a graduate student, plan to be (or already are) a public manager, or just want a thorough grounding in the theory and practice of public administration, this book will serve you well.

Since I know some students don't buy books on their syllabi for financial reasons or for stubbornness, my recommendation is to get the book. It also makes a great reference for the papers you'll have to write.

Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector is a textbook that explicitly examines and explains the three major issues of public administration: management, politics, and law. It is an excellent text for advanced undergraduate or graduate students. In addition, this book identifies the differences in roles involved in public administration. For example, it describes the difference between the managerial and leadership roles in delivering public services. It discusses the traditional management style versus the New Public Management style in dealing with accountability on the part of administration, as well as the public.

On the positive side, the personal experience of the author's depression is daunting and even insightful (it may make anyone think twice about whether they really suffer from depression, compared to the extent of his illness). But I feel mislead: from the synopses and reviews I read, I expected more than an extended self-portrait. He could have condensed his own trauma into the introductory portion and spent more time with the "atlas" and "cross-cultural" analysis that is supposedly the focal point. It lost my interest quickly.

In this remarkable work, author Andrew Solomon offers an incredibly thorough and engrossing account of the landscape of depression. He skillfully manages to weave together a virtually endless supply of scientific knowledge and up-to-date information on depression statistics and literature with excepts taken from a seemingly tireless series of interviews with fellow depression sufferers. It is these anecdotal vignettes which make up the heart of the book, as Solomon completely captivates his readers with these often-moving accounts. Solomon opens by sharing his own story ("Breakdowns"); along the way, he holds nothing back as he describes just how devastating repeated episodes of a major depressive disorder can be.

Solomon is a writer, not a psychologist, but as a psychologist myself, I was impressed by his grasp of this material. I was particularly gratified to see that earlier on in the book he dispelled with the myth of certain types of depression being "chemical" imbalances whereas others are not; he correctly points out that all emotions, be it depression, happiness, or what have you, result in chemical changes in the brain. Furthermore, based on his own treatment history, Solomon shows great open-mindedness about the roles of both medication and therapy in the treatment of depression; he specifically points out that those who are treated with psychotherapy alone show the same biological changes as those treated with medication. These are just a few of the most salient issues which spoke to me, but Solomon's work is comprehensive, covering everything from the history of depression to depressed populations; providing an overview of treatment, including the role of addictions; offering perspectives on contributing factors such as poverty and politics; and leaving his readers with a sense of hope.

This book is neither a light nor an easy read, but it is definitely worth the effort. It is perhaps not suited to those who are currently in the midst of a depressive episode, but those who have been there and back are likely to relate completely, and those professionals who work with depression sufferers are likely to gain new empathy and insights. Highly recommended.

For anyone living with chronic depression, this book is invalable. It is also my reccomendation that it be read by someone close to another who is suffering with depression, it will allow you to understand, without having depression yourself, what the depressed person is going through better than any other book I have ever read on the subject. If you have a loved one suffering with depression and don't understand why they "don't just pull themselves out of it and get back involved in life" read this book, even just the first few chapters and you will have an entirely new understanding of the depressed person.

This book hasn't yet (I'm about 2/3ds the way through) offered any cures, solutions, tips, or "magic bullets" for those of us suffering from depression. What it does offer is empathy. Solomon's description of being "afraid of showers" and how immobilized he was by his depression made me burst into tears - of relief. To know that I am not the only person who's ever felt this way -- to know that it's not something about me, personally, but something that another person can understand, has experienced, and can articulate much better than I have ever been able to -- was such a relief.

I do find myself envious of Solomon's support system -- depression has been very isolating for me, and my "support system" consists of those few toxic bonds I haven't yet severed, and one or two people who would certainly be helpful in an emergency, but not on a day-to-day or caretaking basis. I am also envious of his ability to find (with an effort)responsive doctors, and an insurance plan that apparently doesn't place limits on medication benefits. (I've been through every MH specialist enrolled in my insurance plan without finding a "fit," and now have to choose between suffering, or getting a second job to pay out of pocket for therapy with someone else. Further, many of his medication "cocktails" would not be covered by my insurance, and I'd have to sell a kidney or something.) I also found myself wondering what his outcome would have been if he'd been a single parent, like myself; if he'd lacked the extensive support system; or if he didn't have health insurance, like many people I know.

However, what's important to me is not comparing who's got it easier, but simply the knowledge that I AM NOT ALONE. There are many things Solomon mentions that, although I've heard them from doctors and mental health specialists over the years, didn't sink in until I was able to hear it from a fellow sufferer.

I highly recommend this for anyone who has suffered from long-term depression, or who has a friend or family member dealing with the disease. I would not advise reading it while in the depths of a "downswing" (likely to make it worse) nor on a really good and "up" day (likely to bum you out, or you may feel so distanced from "the demon" that you can't relate at that time).

BTW the book was recommended to me by a physician, who called it "the best book on the subject [he'd] ever read."

I looked forward to reading this book, but mainly found it unenlightening and if you're depressed, it certainly won't improve your mood. The author does nothing to look at clinical trial results of SSRIs and newer antidepressants that conclude 50% of people do not respond or the percentage responding is no better than placebo. Many therapists will tell you most people on SSRIs go from one drug to another with some relief but eventually none work or patients end up on multiple drug therapy that barely keeps the illness at bay. He also gives a dismissive account of cognitive behavioral therapy in the early pages of the book that does not do justice to this treatment. He doesn't even mention dialectic behavior therapy. Both CBT and DBT have strong evidence to support their use and that they provide lasting benefit beyond treatment. His dismissive posture towards St JohnsWort as possibly dangerous is baffling. Most European drs. would disagree with him. He reveals his bias for pharmaceuticals early on and lets us know that he's on a cocktail of pills that keep him functional--but you have to wonder. I do commend him for looking at depression in marginal populations. If you are looking for a book that puts depression in a cultural and societal context (as this book promises to do but doesn't) I'd recommend David Karp's book Speaking of Sadness, which is a little more academic but gives some insight into the meaning of depression, which Solomon's book does not.

My 'phenom' daughter recommended this book to me. She read it as a poli-sci/pre-med undergrad at UC Berkeley, and having noticed my growing cynicism regarding the direction our country has been headed, this was her 'philosophical lifesaver'. What Prof. Rawls offers is nothing less than a roadmap of hope, not only for our country but for the world. And that's a mouthful of praise, coming from a cynical Vietnam-vet.

This is a must-read book. This treatise analyses how peoples of diverse cultures and religions can find a path towards living cooperatively together in peace. If the peoples of the world want to find a "government" that can lead them all and be respected, this book will be of enormaous assistance in understanding the way it may be done.
The discussion views a variety of disparate forms of societies and describes their pros and cons to underscore his arguments, and as a result Laws could easily be quoted out of context. This however is the strength of his discourse, as he takes the reader along in his line of thought, while at the same time answering his anticipated critics.

This concise book consists of 2 essays, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited and The Law of Peoples. While The Idea... essay is second in the book, I would read it first because it is a good review of a crucial concept in Rawls' thought and very useful for grasping the argument in The Law of Peoples. The Idea... explicates Rawls emphasis on mutual justification and the somewhat separate nature of political conduct in formulating the basis of polities.

Some of Rawls' last work, The Law of Peoples is an attempt to extend Rawls contractarian approach to international relations. Rawls uses the same approach here used in prior work proposing a reasonable basis for political organization of individual polities. In international relations, Rawls proposes a contract between Peoples (or their representatives) who meet on equal terms behind an analogue of his famous "veil of ignorance" to guarantee a free and equal status. This leads to rational (promotion of self interest) and reasonable (mutually and publicly justifiable) formulation of standards for international conduct. These include many standard tenets of international law such as war only for self-defense. Rawls includes both liberal societies (essentially all forms of functioning modern democracies) and what he terms decent peoples. The latter will not meet all the criteria for a liberal state but will respect human rights and have some measures for broad political participation. Something like the type of state envisioned by 18th century theorists like Montesquieu or a state with an state religion and tolerance of other faiths would be decent societies. Rawls basic point is that the values upheld by liberal or decent societies extend logically via the mechanisms he proposes to a reasonable ideal formulation of international relations. Rawls does propose this as an assembly of Peoples, rather than states. This distinction is not perfectly clear but may be that state for Rawls implied too much about the powers of the entity and may not satisfy the veil of ignorance criteria.

After formulating and justifying his ideal theory, Rawls discuses some non-ideal issues, such as conduct of war and the obligations favored states have towards less fortunate states.

Like much of Rawls work, this work is rigorously formulated and written very carefully. Rawls is never a sparking stylist but this work is perhaps more easily read than some of this work. Rawls feels this work is realistically utopian, the purpose of which is to define some of the bounds of what might be possible in international relations by systematic exercise of reason and good faith. In this case, this is actually realistic. Rawls is on firm ground in the sense that some of the foundations for developing his system, like the existence of democractic pluralistic societies and absence of war between democracies, are real phenomena.

First, some disclosure regarding my opinion of Rawls (may he rest in peace). I am no fan of Rawls' work, be it this work or his others. As such, my own views will no doubt influence my opinion, so keep that in mind as you read on.

This book is divided into two parts, the first dedicated to the "Law of Peoples," the second to public reason. In the interests of space, I will only concentrate on the first portion.

The Law of Peoples is Rawls' attempt to bring his notions of justice as fairness and the like into the international scene. Using a modified "original position," Rawls discusses the way the international scene would run, not only with liberal societies, but also "decent" and "outlaw" states (among others). Fine and good.

The problem lies (as it does with "Theory of Justice" and "Political Liberalism") in the acceptance of what the "original position" would result in. The original position requires that "comprehensive doctrines" be left to the side (read "Theory" for more on that). In other words, your (or a people's) worldview (or deep notion of the good) must be cast aside. This is problematic enough, but it gets worse. Rawls wants a "political, not metaphysical" notion of justice to prevail. By happy chance, that "political" notion just happends to be liberal, of a moderate left variety. Rawls would deny that he is slipping in his "comprehensive doctrine" into the works, but it does make things difficult.

So, say a people decides that they prefer their own comprehensive doctrine (a religion, an ideology of one type or another, etc.) to the "political" version of Rawls. Rawls argues that "reasonable" peoples will accept it, at least on some level, thanks to an "overlapping consensus" (very basically, that the political notion will overlap enough with the comprehensive doctrine, making it acceptable at some level). Both "reasonable" and "overlapping consensus" are argued at length in "Political Liberalism." The consensus idea has some merit. But who are "reasonable"? Why, they are the peoples who follow the original position's precepts, of course. How....convenient.

While Rawls would not agree, this system (like his national systems in "Theory" and "PL") is in practice the imposition of comprehensive liberalism by other means. When reading Rawls, it isn't a bad idea to have some critiques on his work handy (for instance: Michael Sandel, Robert P. George, perhaps Gutmann & Thompson, among others). Rawls is a giant in the field, whether one agrees with him or not. If one wants to understand contemporary political theory, he should be read - but read "Theory" or "PL". If you are interested in political theory as it involves international relations, read "PL", then read this, not because it's great, but it's popular.

Law of peoples has a major flaw: misconceptions, and this are:

1 - Bismarck isn't a statesman????? But Lincoln and Washington are!?!??!?!?! I believe j. rawls hadn't a great european knowledge at time he wrote about this part, even if he has, he's idea of "Just", "fair" seems ambiguos, since where is the difference between Lincoln, Washington and Bismarck? All three fought war to unify (or maintain the unity) of they people.

2 - About his exceptions, it is a shock to read that a country can suspend the status of citizien (civil) and transform all people of the enemy as military target, justifiyng that in "the need of win the war, and stop the evil". God, in other words: if i mean that country X is evil, and to prevent his victory i can use all means necessary so i can use nuclear weapons against it?

3 - His position in judging things in "evil/good" are.... how to say: a Error, if not a bu.......But this is personal opinion about the book.

4 - This is the greatest flaw: all idea about law of peoples move over the idea of american way of life, in other words, it isn't a law of peoples, but a AMERICAN law of peoples, even if he speak from toleration.

At last, i believe i found the doctrinal base of George W. Bush foreign policy: america is a paladin wielding the sword of justice to bring democracy (american democracy) to the world, and this is the law of people. This is the ideological flaw of this work.

Not to say that there aren't good point of view (that's why 3 stars) i would only sugest this book to people that, at minimum, readed: Epoch of International Law (GREWE) and Diplomacy (KISSINGER). If u don't have international history, law, relations knowledge, read this two books before entering in m. rawls ideas, or u may be converted in this ideologically flawed book.

When I took my first practice LSAT I received a 145. My weakest section was the logic games, but after reading this book it became my easiest section. I recently took the June 2008 LSAT and received a 153- not bad if you are looking for mediocre schools, and received 21 of 23 on the Logic Games section. I know a lot of fellow LSAT takers who have problem with this portion of the LSAT and the books they read have all of these wacky, difficult to understand diagrams.
This prep book gives you clear, and easy instructions that become like second nature with enough practice. I probably studied for less than a month with the Logic Games bible. Oh, and I do plan on taking the upcoming October LSAT and using the Logical Reasoning Bible(same company, must be good right?) along with anything I can find on reading comprehension!

This book is extremely helpful for anyone preparing for the LSAT, no matter what level you're at. I am currently taking a prep course from KAPLAN and I feel that this book is really helping me maximize my scoring potential. A MUST BUY!

The PowerScore LSAT Logic Games BIble (LGB) has been an invaluable resource as I prepare for the LSAT. Although I am attending a prep course, I also use the LGB for additional assistance. The Games Logic Bible contains problems and thorough explanations to right AND wrong answers. Once you get into the groove of tackling the questions, it's sometimes difficult to put down the book. Coupled with the class, I feel confident that this additional resource will help me excel on the upcoming exam.

this seller is awesome! the product arrived in impeccable condition! i am extremely satisfied!

Like their Logical Reasoning Bible, what I liked about this book is that it is like having a tutor sitting next to you explaining how to go about things. I've gone through many other logic games books and this one still ranks to me as #1 because of that.

The book is great for breadth of material as well as depth. Definitely comprehensive.

The book tells you the typical kinds of inferences you should be looking for immediately after processing the rules. Lots of tips and tricks to be found in this book. All taught using real LSAT questions. I found their selection of games to be quite representative as well.

If you are only going to get one logic games book, this is the one.

Despite that the book is very expensive and a required text book for college, I think it is an excellent book. It is informative and easy to read. The author made the information interesting and kept me engaged. If I didn't need the money (from reselling it), I would keep it as a reference guide.

This book contains a concise explanation of every day problems regarding foreign transactions, together with an explanation of the Common law system specially in United States, this book concentrates pertinent cases for each of the subjects explained in it.

Algerian leader Houari Boumédienne said at the United Nations in 1974:
"One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."

Al-Jazeera's Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi, who is widely hailed as a moderate reformer in the West. said:
"Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor," and "the conquest this time will not be by the sword but by preaching and ideology."

A Saudi Sheikh, Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-`Arifi, imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy, said:
Muslims "will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it"

Mullah Krekar, a jihadist who currently resides in Norway, although officials have been trying for years to get him out of the country, said:
"The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes"

Omar Ahmad Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations: "Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." -

Repetitive, biased and sympathetic commentary about un-Islamic or so called Islamic regimes: caliphates, kingdoms and emirates of Sunni Muslim rulers of the past 14 centuries... False premises on which this whole thesis is based on: Sunni Scholars were custodian of Sharia, orienting the rulers implement the Islamic law. Not a fact, most the scholars of the time were not monitoring the rulers of course not; rather interpreting Sharia the way it best suits them and the ruler, like one of the Koranic injunctions: "obey those in authority among you", or the prophet's saying that "scholars are his heir". These so called scholars were accomplice most of the time, innovators, inventors of Hadiths (Prophet Mohammad's sayings and traditions), concocting false traditions of the prophet Mohammad to justify their rulers' illegitimate rights to the empires and caliphates...Very few Sunni scholars revolted or spoke against the rulers, most of the time it was Shia imams and their followers who did not give up speaking the truth and revolting against the tyranny and falsehood of the rulers of the time. The writer ignored all these and other facts of the Muslim history, rather most of the time his opinion is not substantiated with reasons, facts or examples at all...The writer also tried to place the present day government of Iran in the same league to which Taliban belongs, not a fair assessment...
He totally ignored the Muslim majority countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, some references to Pakistan not much, his unblinking focus is on Middle Eastern countries, which were carved by the west after fall of Ottoman Empire and WWII... another inaccurate assumption was about the objectives and the following of the Islamists- They are not moderate nor widely accepted by the Muslim majority. Iran is a different case.

He tried in vain to discuss The Fall and Rise of Islamic State in less than 200 pages, of course real history, reasons and facts cannot be fit into small space like this... Imagine how Islamic Iraqi Constitution would be which he helped white house to write for Iraqis... WOW

Noah Feldman's deeply interesting and profoundly misleading book supplies an answer to a question that must puzzle Americans who buy the argument that Islam is a religion of peace: Why do Muslim voters always turn out majorities for violent Islamist parties?
The short answer, according to Feldman, a Harvard Law professor and heavy hitter at the Council of Foreign Relations, is that misgoverned Muslims subscribe to a religion that makes much of justice, and they yearn for a return to a rule of law -- sharia -- that they believe worked in their glorious past.
You have to recognize that Feldman misrepresents the political goals of the Islamists, which he equates with the Muslim Brotherhood. In particular, he accepts the published platform statements of the various national Brotherhood parties, while ignoring their (more indicative) speeches to their adherents.
As well as to non-Muslims. The Islamists have not been shy about telling us what they intend, which does not match the anodyne statements in the party platforms.
According to Feldman, sharia offered (at a time when no other religion or political system did so) a promise of law-based government, and divine law at that. The sultans had to defer to sharia, and sharia was (by a fluke of Muslim history) the preserve of independent scholars, the ulama.
The scholars served as a counterbalance to the inherent despotism of kings, leaving Muslims satisfied that something other than mere force ruled their lives.
Right here Feldman goes off the rails. He asserts that sharia was (and is) egalitarian, at least for men, and that this contributed to the satisfaction of the populace and, so long as they were seen to be deferring to sharia, to the legitimacy of rulers.
This is false. Sharia is egalitarian only among Muslims. It requires that non-Muslims be treated as inferiors at law.
However, if, as Feldman is, you are primarily concerned with finding some constitutional framework that might replace the failed states of the majority Muslim countries, perhaps you can overlook this inconvenient truth. Whatever his motive, Feldman does overlook it.
He argues that the unintended outcome of the Tanzimat (Ottoman reform movement of the 19th century) was a disaster for the balance of political interests in Muslim states.
The independent scholars were ruined by being replaced with a written constitution. The constitution was then revoked, leaving not even a theoretical restraint on the executive.
This system of no checks and no balances, he says, carried over to the 20th century, after the last sultan departed. Thus, almost all Muslims consider themselves oppressed, their rulers illegitimate.
Instead of looking to some modern, parliamentary replacement, they look backward to the good old days, when executives were restrained by sharia.
Though pessimistic about its chances, Feldman considers this atavistic approach almost the only conceivable way that a new, stable and just constitutional framework could be arrived at in majority Muslim countries.
Since so far Islamist parties always win when elections are more or less free, the rest of the world had better learn to deal with it, he says.
But he is misleading or worse when he treats sharia as something internal to Muslims. Muslims who live in non-Muslim countries say (to pollsters and in widely distributed sermons) that they wish to live under sharia, too.
The kicker is that when they say that, they mean everybody -- not just Muslims -- must live by sharia.
Feldman concludes: "Just now, the Islamist promise of the rule of law offers the only prospect for meaningful political justice for many Muslims. If it, too, fails, the alternative may well be worse."
It's difficult to see how non-Muslims could peacefully co-exist with the success of Islamism, however.

The author knows exactly what he is talking about. And unlike most of the literature he is trying to discuss the issue logically and in details.
He seems to have very good understanding of the way muslims think in the East.

Noah Feldman's thesis is based on a false premise; one that suggests that Muslims around the globe are clamouring for an "Islamic State".

This assumption is repudiated by the fact that in the recent elections in Pakistan, all parties propagating the establishment of Sharia based Islamic State were trounced and the centre-left PPP formed a coalition with the number two party, the centre-right ML and the secular nationalists of the ANP.

In Indonesia as well as Bangladesh, there is little appetite for the Islamists while in Iran, if the Mullahs ever permitted a fair and transparent elections, they would be wiped out. No wonder the ruling Ayatollahs vet every candidate and reject the nomination papers of any secular liberal Muslim candidate, not mentioning the impossibility of anyone from the Left seeking any public office.

And in the Arab heartland, it would take no more than one cycle of elections to ensure that Muslim Brotherhood return to the margins of society where they have historically belonged.

I was surprised at the wealth of information this book contains, not only about different types of guns, but laws and other information.

I got this book due to recommendations from many excellent websites and other authors whom I know to stand for Freedom and Liberty as established by our Founding Fathers and the many excellent riflemen who fought the Revolutionary War and all the men who have fought in subsequent wars to preserve our Constitution. What I got was a super bargain for the price. It is enlarged from the original by some 200 pages and reads so fast and easy that it is phenomenal. He gives the reader a good Index of terms/acronyms that you will use. It is located in the front of the book and is easy to refer back to when necessary. Aside from that, this guy gives you history, heritage, explanations on WHY we need to protect ourselves, especially from over zealous liberals who want to remove our 2nd Amendment Rights and who keep bogging us down with "Regulations" in effort to try and take our guns away. You get reviews of rifles, handguns, shotguns in as much depth as you could wish for from a man who knows what he is talking about. He brings in views from "experts" in many areas and topics to back up what he is trying to explain to you.

You cannot go wrong with BTP. He's right for every FREEDOM LOVING person in the U.S. If you are a Liberal and are against anyone except the police and military having guns, then you are going to find yourself very much abused in this book for being already enslaved and under control of other people who think they know what is best for you, regardless of what you think about it.

I must emphasize one very outstanding focus BTP makes in this book. He has a fully detailed section for Women and how they need to protect themselves. He helps with gun selections and other protective means.

Lastly, he gives you resource referral information on where to go to get what, things to watch (videos, movies), books to read, and important names/addresses/contact info, website addresses, etc.,on other resources including within the government. This is a super resource and learning book that is very timely in this day and time when it looks like we may be faced with some kind of issues in self protection/survival from terrorists, bad governmental agents, or people who want to bring you and your family harm. It will lift your "Freedom Loving" spirits in showing you how YOU can survive and how you MUST protect yourself and your family. I find myself picking it up and rereading here and there all the time. It is almost a daily thing to review something or some section in my Gun Bible and get Boston's views on it again. I found this as one of the best ever books I've ever owned and it is definitely very inspirational to this old Constitutionalist who feels that his freedoms are slipping out from under him very fast in this day and time.

This is one book I would honestly recommend for everyone. If you are a gun owner and have not read this book you must at once. If you plan on buying a gun at any point you need this book. Without a doubt the best single book on the subject of firearm ownership.

This book gives the best information about the technical specifications and advantages of different guns than any other I have ever seen. It also gives a lot of information regarding the law, your rights, and which states are gun-friendly. There are also substantial portions of the author's philosophy written about in the book. Kenneth Royce is truly an expert on the subject of guns, and this book has changed my way of thinking forever. The most valuable part of the book, I believe, is the section dealing with the advantages and disadvantages of various guns. He thoroughly exhausted that subject. I recommend this book for everyone, not just gun owners. If you are a gun owner, I guarantee that this book will have some information you can use. If you're planning on becoming a gun owner, this book will help you decide which gun to buy first. If you're not sure, I believe this book will convince you you need a gun. If you are anti-gun, this book may very well change your mind-- if not with its philosophy, then with its statistics.

In the title of my review, I mentioned that there is some impractical advice in the book. Mr. Royce strongly encourages everyone to devote a major portion of their life and money to purchasing and training with guns. While it's fine to talk about different training ranches and expensive guns, Royce goes so far as to imply that if you don't do this, you're a fool. In reference to people who say that they can't afford a multi-thousand dollar sniper rifle, he responds, "how much protection can you afford not to have? Save money in other areas so you have enough to purchase guns." He says basically the same thing about expensive gun training courses offered by Thunder Ranch and others. It's the arrogance of his statements which really bother me. I don't know how Royce makes a living (I doubt that much of his income comes from books), but normal people have families to feed, and simply cannot afford to buy a $6,000 Barrett because the USA is an expensive country and people with normal jobs don't make that much money. He also says that there are two kinds of people in an army: riflemen and cooks, and refers to those firearms owners who aren't expert riflemen as "cooks" (his criteria for graduating from "cook" status is in the book). Not everyone can be Carlos Hathcock. His attitude throughout the book brings the term "gun snob" to mind, and really put me off after I thought about it for a while. From reading this book, I'm sure Mr. Royce thinks very highly of himself.

Although his superior attitude offends me, most of his statistics about crime are hard to argue with, most of his philosophy makes sense, and I certainly can't knock the technical information contained in Boston's Gun Bible. Again, this is a must read. Buy this book NOW.

Boston T. Party is a pen-name for Kenneth W. Royce, a libertarian author of several non-fiction books. In his firearms reference manual, Boston's Gun Bible, the author pours out his knowledge of guns, but apparently does not bother to employ either a ghost writer or editor.

A basic knowledge of firearms is assumed by the author however, the first chapter does cover terminology. Later chapters include Women and Guns, Rating the Battle Rifles, Rating the Battle Carbines, How to Buy, Sell & Trade and You & the BATF. Also included are chapters or sections covering individual rifles and pistols. Based on the information provided, I would give the book five stars.

There is a detailed table of contents, but no index. The pages are number in the military style, chapter/page, so if you are on the tenth page of chapter four it would read 4/10. One reviewer mentioned the book had 848 pages. I have not counted.

The writing style varies unevenly from technical to conversational, sprinkled with wit and occasional sarcasm. Fonts, font size, italics and bolding seem to change at the whim of the author. This does detract from a five star rating. However if you want basic information and opinion based upon experience about modern firearms and accessories as well as rankings and comparisons between different makes and models, this is a good buy.

Recommendation: If you have one or two guns and are interested in expanding both your knowledge and your collection I recommend Boston's Gun Bible as an easy to read reference manual.

Kyle Pratt