Underdog

Just looking for well-written stories that deal with prepping, societal collapse, etc. It seems that there are a lot more of them these days, and a lot of them are a complete waste of time. Most of my reading deals with political issues, fantasy (and some science fiction). I read the first two books from 299 Days and it was OK, but not that impressive. I then heard an interview of Tate and he said that he was trying to get away from the gun-laden stories of socieital collapse and present himself as just a "regular guy". He didn't want to present himself as some crazy prepping, gun-toting wacko in his stories. However, when I read his two books, he seems to have a little bit of double-talk there other than the wacko part. I liked the Going Home series by A. American. I have not read any stories about biological or chemical armegeddon, as they creep me out much more than say an EMP or hyper inflation scenario, but I am looking to expand. Just curious what some of you would recommend, not recommend, or even just what you have read. Everyone and his or her mother has been writing in this "genre" these days, but the only series that seems to be "main stream" is Glen Tates, which is probably worth reading, but it is lacking something. Just looking for some new ideas for my Nook. It seems all of the stories are about a recent collapse, and I am probably most interested in that scenario, but would be open to other literature.

I believe that he is probably not responsible for it if it fell on your property, but a responsible neighbor would at least help with the cost of fixing the fence. To the best of my knowledge, as far as insurance goes, it is not the amount of the claim so much as it is the number of claims. One claim should not affect your insurance, although you might read your policy to find out. What would is if you had another claim, say within 3 years. And, if something happens and that claim is substantially more, then you will definitely want to claim it. Lastly, you could very well have a deductible, so, it might not be in your best interest to make that claim if it is less than your deductible. Lastly, even if you don't formally make the claim, but rather just inquire with your insurance company, that might be enough to be considered a "claim" and would work against you even if the company did not make a payout but if you made another claim with in the next year or so. If taking care of the tree and fence would be a hardship for you, you may want to make the claim. If not, then you might just want to handle it.

I don't think I would consider something like this, especially in this felony-laden state. I think money and time would be better spent on even something like a Rock Island.

There are other alternatives, but I don't want you guys going to my range.

I love the S&W M&P 22, and it is my favorite 22 pistol. I don't have any experience with the 22 Compact, but know that it is made in America, and if it is anything like the Walther-made full-size M&P 22, then it is a winner. If it was available, I would have probably have chosen it over the larger version, but wouldn't, now, unless it shares the same magazines. If it fits your hands, I would say go for th M&P unlesss your defensive handgun platform is a Walther PPQ, etc.. As for the Ruger suggestions, the Rugers are extremely durable, versatile and upgradeable pistols, but they have their drawbacks as well.. I like the Ruger Mark III Hunter Target version distributor exclusive in stainless with the 5.5" fluted bull barrel. It is perfect for mounting a scope. However, I would trade it anytime for a comparable Ruger Mark II, stainless, with a 5.5" bull barrel in similar condition. The only positive it has over the Mark II is the location of the magazine release. As far as versatility goes, I think the most versatile 22 handgun is the Ruger Mark III 22/45 Lite with the 4.5" barrel. But, as someone suggested, you cannot go wrong with a nice .22Lr revolver such as a Ruger SP101 double-action revolver. Everyone needs a .22LR revolver.

Putting a Socialist Lite Republican in office will not do anything. We have to get rid of ALL of the incumbents. The party is fractured... there are true conservatives and those that claim to be conservative (fiscally conservative and socially liberal)..

As a side note, you can get a single-shot magazine for the 10/22.

This is a strange topic. The rights of the individual should be considered highly, but I'll play devil's advocate. Why have an arbitrary time and condtition (6 mos. And terminal)? And how could you be so sure that it is 6 and not say eight months? How do you keep the State with its things like "end of life" counseling out of the mix, and with the thought generated that one might be a burden and such? And, how easy would it be to make a true homicide appear to be a medically-induced suicide? And, even in a state where it is not legal, one can, say over a period of eight years, drink oneself to death. And what about terminally ill children? Or perhaps offering it to those "terminally" scheduled or serving a life sentence in prison. And many believe that say severe depression is a treatable illness. Or what if a cure for your terminal disease can be found right after your decision? It seems like this would opening up a whole other can of worms. If you were already coined with a terminal illness with I would assume at least one second or fifth opinion, then would jive with being able to receive one's life insurance benefits based on terminal sentence. Many are taught to value life.

Did the forum catch or discuss last month's bill that was recently passed in the Assembly, Bill A2895, concerning expanding NJ's Gun "Buyback" Program? I thought Gun Buyback programs were technically illegal in this state?

It is a defensive carry gun, and with training the safety is unnecessary (perhaps unless carried in a pocket). I don't want to train using a safety, and don't want it to be the only platform with one, and evev though it is low profile and generally easy to ignore, it's still there and there is a possibility of it accidentally being engaged even though it is remote. That nessesitates training with it. If it isn't there, it cannot get in the wsy.

The Shield is thinner and easier to conceal than the Glock 19, especially for some body types. In my estimation it shoots more like a G19 than say a Pocket gun. For me that is the appeal to the sleek Shield because it feels more like a medium-size gun. The M&P compact is also a sweet gun not to be overlooked. It is smaller, but thicker than the Shield with a sight radius similar to a G19. I would lovea G19-sized Shield with a longer barrel.

THIS is the best post in this whole thread. This is what NJ gun owners should be focusing on in my soft-spoken opinion.

Imagine if it had been just a peasant that was charged... I would be interested in knowing what kind of community service Ferguson will actually serve. I was thinking maybe cleaning the toilets at Riker's Island, or something similar. http://www.inquisitr.com/1495491/dwayne-ferguson-gun-control-advocate-sentenced/ Dwayne Ferguson, Gun Control Advocate, Sentenced For Bringing Weapon To Elementary School Dwayne Ferguson was arrested back in February for bringing a loaded gun onto a Buffalo, NY, elementary school campus — marked at the time as ironic, since Ferguson was a noted local gun control advocate. The activist was at the school to volunteer in a mentoring capacity. He is known for other volunteer work in the community and regularly keeps his weapon at his side. In various accounts, Ferguson is said to have either forgotten to remove his gun before heading to the school, forgotten he had it with him, or to have not known he could not take his gun to school. The gun control supporter’s sentence was handed down on Monday and many say it was too lenient. Back when the story broke, it was reported that Ferguson was a volunteer of the local chapter of MAD DADS, an antiviolence group. He works with troubled youth in the city and was volunteering at the elementary school. It was also noted that he had been a big supporter of New York’s SAFE Act, a gun control law which was written to increase background checks for gun purchases. Ferguson is specifically said to have supported a state assemblywoman who was lobbying for gun control laws to make bringing a gun on school grounds a felony charge. However, the sentence handed down this week was startlingly light: according to WIVB4, Dwayne Ferguson is expected to complete 100 hours of community service and stay out of trouble. If there are no further incidents, he will face no more serious charges. It’s notable that the activist appeared the very next day after the incident to issue a public apology for the gun incident, but he also plead not guilty to three charges, including the charge of carrying a loaded firearm on school property, according to WIVB4‘s February report. The report also states that Ferguson claimed he wasn’t aware of any law or rule preventing him from carrying his gun on school property, despite reports he joined in lobbying for exactly such a law. Many are calling the sentence and the charges ironic because of Ferguson’s support of gun control, but the Buffalo News reports that the discharge of the sentence is indeed conditional: Wayne Ferguson must report back to the judge in six months, and if he fails to comply with the conditions inside three years, he will face a year in prison for the misdemeanor charge of fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. Should a gun control advocate be charged more harshly for violating the laws he supported or was reducing the charge a reasonable measure for a man who has worked to improve his community and simply made a mistake? [photo credit: smalbanynewyork.wordpress.com] I would say that whatever the maximum charge is, he should have received it. I wonder what Shaneen Allen will receive with her PTI, and if the two Republics will be comparable? I imagine that she has already had more jail time than this progressive statist whose community service will be watering flowers, or something similar.

In my opinion, the kind of training this would most likely entail isn't going to take wrecklessness, or lack of higher level thinking out of the individual, or increase one's wisdom. It isn't going to increase one's awareness level enough to change behavior, etc. Someone is either responsible and SEEKS being informed and/ or training, or does not. So, mandating this training won't have the desired effect. Instead, it will just give the State more power over the people, and more tools to regulate and control, and possibly end the private ownership of firearms. Providing more affordable private opportunities and places to practice with the firearm is the answer! And if the State was really interested in safety it would make it easier for, and help establish more training facilities to make training more accessible to everyone, and to allow for more competition in providing that training and better prices for the individual. And, for safety's sake and reasonableness, the state could forgo its sales tax on firearms purchases and the cost of FID and permits so that that money can be put toward training, just like it does on the sale of safes. And, continuing on this line of thought, why not have some of the local training facilities partner with local gun dealers in offering basic safety classes when purchasing new guns? I would say the current NRA basic class as it stands is cost-prohibitive toward this goal, which in my estimation needs to be about $25 for that class. And, for new shooters, the NRA might be able to offer a $5.00 first year membership and state that the other $30 SHOULD be put toward training. This class should also be offered to prospective gun owners as well who inquire in the gun shops, and to seasoned gun owners. The local training facitlity could even charge, say $50, and stipulate that if you take the class, maybe $20 could be put toward higher level training courses, etc.. Additionally, to raise awareness, have the industry provide new gun owners with the opportunity to complete a short quiz at the time of purchase that shows that the newly gun owner understands basic gun safety concepts and the need for basic training, perhaps while they are waiting for nics and then let them SELF-CORRECT it and be solely responsible for the results and see why they might need training. The only thing the state should do is gently recommend that a firearms safety class be included in public schools that corresponds to appropriate age level, which should be performed by NRA-sanctioned (or industry sanctioned) instructors and to get rid of the ridiculous, unconstitutional zero-tolerance BS that prevents that type of learning to go on.

I am not reacting to the importance of training. I am reacting to the mentality that the government and regulations solve problems. There are many on here that won't distinguish between State-Sanctioned training and private training and would just as soon take the state plan. I agree that it is responsible to get training. But, it is not YOUR job or the STATE's to tell me to do so, or how much training I need, etc. If you want that training, join a private range and insist that it be enforced for all members to the level that you are satisfied with. You have to have training in most cases to join one. Maybe I don't experience these dangers too much because I don't go to a public range and see all of the reckless shooters. By the way, don't public ranges have Range Officers and don't they do something?

Pass that guy HB a big glass of koolaid for me. It really is sad the views of some of the people of this forum and the fact that they are representing a percentage of New Jersey gun owners. Yes, I have seen examples of people handling firearms unsafely, but it isn't a rampant problem and can usually easily be addressed by someone near them politely educating them. I feel more safe at the local range than I do riding my bike on the county road near my house, and I am not calling for mandatory cell phone and texting classes before somebody gets a cell phone or a car. I have just one question, if you mandate training before someone gets a firearm, what firearm are they going to use to learn how to use it properly? I know what you are thinking, progressive-minded forum members, but renting a firearm, or the like, isn't going to cut it in learning how to be a good and safe and responsible firearm owner just as educating people on what alcohol can do to one's judgement and body isn't going to stop a few from driving drunk. If anyone decides to get a firearm and does not on his or her own learn how to use it properly, maintain it properly, and store it properly, then he or she will still not get it after a mandatory state-sanctioned safety class. Safety comes from taking the time to educate oneself, reading about a topic and learning from others by their example. For most people, I believe firearms ownership in itself, flips a switch, and like a rite of passage, they step up and become more responsible. Say you get hired somwhere for a job and they have a class about employee theft. They have cameras up everythere, and they don't allow you to handle money, etc. Do you really think that that employer will have any more honesty there, or less need for concern than another employer that sets up an atmosphere of trust in and empowerment of his or her employees? Stop creating a nanny-state culture in which people are not accountable for their own behavior. Stop giving the government more and more control over the people.

I would only get rid of my Shield to get one without a thumb safety. Or, preferably if they came out with one that had just a slighly longer slide/barrel, perhaps the length of a G19.

As I read the post, maybe you were being sarcastic. Sorry about that. It's hard to tell, as there are so many members on here that seem to want to give up their personal liberty. It is NOT a good idea. The purpose should not be to help NRA or local businesses. No it will not help people in general. I will not feel or be any more safe. State will NEVER scrap anything, only add more and more schumer to what is already there. The way you write this, it can be read that you are being sarcastic and that you are really for it. More yes than no, etc. Perhaps sarcasm with "shame" and "no" lines. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Yes! I feel the same way... Even the people that SHOULD know better and have common sense, right OgFarmer, they are ready to sell us out even further. You are right! It is exhausting that so many are willing to just give these destestable clown legislatures what they want.

If the NRA doesn't oppose this bill, they will not get another penny from me other than what I have to give them. The problem is that in order to renew my range membership, I have to be an NRA member for the insurance, and on a whole, they still do a lot of good. Lapierre, I hope you are listening. Turn up that hearing aid. The NRA's only stance should be that they heartily recommend and help to provide training, but it should be out of the hands of the government.

This! Excellent Post! Too bad it contradicts your other one. Have you ever heard the phrase "you cannot fix stupid"? You think a training course will make you more safe at the range, etc.? The community should police itself. If someone is unsafe at the range, the range officer, and/or others there should politely set them straight. Do you honestly think this will matter. "Peace Officers" go through lots of training and there are quite a few stories about stupid cops doing dangerous things with firearms. This is about control, not safety!

So, then let the ranges mandate that you need to take a safety class before attending. The government doesn't need to get involved. If they want your business, they should be able to establish a cost-effective and suitable class for you.

I agree with this! But, these tools aren't just for sporting purposes or self defense. These tools are also meant to keep the government in check.

As usual, many of the progressive-indoctrinated on the forum agree with the statists (at least in theory?). Have I missed something? Has there been a rash of irresponsble people running to the ranges to shoot, and doing really dangerous things? All of a sudden this is a pressing issue for those SH in Trenton! At the private range I go to, there doesn't seem to be that many challenged and dangerous shooters, and if there were, they would be educated by the other members. You want training, provide cost-effective opportunity. You want training, provide for more training locations. Let those idiots provide incentive, a tax deduction if you get training. There should be a public range in each town for safety practice. Could you imagine the further delays, etc. that would occur if training had to be done and documented. What if a law is passed to end ranges, like the one against the dreaded gun shows, with no access to training what would happen? And, it seems that once in place, a simple switch would be flipped to make it necessary for all FIDs to be renewed on a regular basis and of course, training. And, all of this training would be a further means of registration by the state. Maybe they will mandate you to take training for each kind of firearm you purchase. Who would perform this training and exactly what would it entail? As someone stated above, lets have the opportunity for firearms training in high school. It couldn't hurt to replace some of the progressive dribble classtime and brainwashing with it. And, while we are at it, lets get rid of the zero-tolerance laws to allow this to happen. Another idea would allow people seeking training to take a nice tax credit to pay for their needed training. I'd take advantage of it to further my education. Besides, the government that wastes everything would be better off without it. And while we are at it, lets talk mandatory... I think that we should have a few more required courses for the public safety. All attorneys should have to have a mandatory Constitutional class and a mandatory ethics class before they can serve in either of those environments, and not classes at the progressive bastions of learning. And, there should be a whole panel of classes judges and politicians should have to take before they can serve their offices, including those Constitutional class and the ethics class. And, lets not stop there, all parents should have safety and educational classes as well.

I originally said the Shield and would recommend getting the one without the safety. It might be less fun for your wife to shoot. But, I deleted that and have changed my mind. Since you already have a couple of 9mms, I think it is time to get a revolver. I think it is a good idea to vary your platforms and have caliber flexibility. I would suggest about a 4" stainless .357 that can handle both .38s and .357. Also, make sure you get a comfy grip for it. Passing 38s down range is quite fun. If you leave NJ, you can always get a smaller semi-auto handgun. Unless you buy used, the revolver will be more pricey. A S&W 686, Ruger GP100, or Ruger SP101 would work nicely. For versatility, (and the possiblity of a carry piece) maybe get the SP101 and put different grips on it. However, if you are thinking about gun sports with a revolver, take the advise of someone on here that does that. A used Ruger Six series (Speed Six, Security, and Service Six), ... in particular the Speed Six (my favorite) might be something to check into as well. Congrats on finishing college and escaping the progressive towers.