Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 7
It seems the motto ‘come and take it’ isn’t unique to just Americans. Our neighbors to the north have a new gun law. It’s something that anti-gun liberals want here nationwide. All Canadians that owned firearms that have been included in the nation’s latest ban on so-called assault weapons must turn them over to authorities. The only problem is that they’re not doing it.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/12/31/come-and-...

They saw what happened in Australia and they're not having it.

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
“It seems the motto ‘come and take it’ isn’t unique to just Americans.”

Axe-u-lee, I remembers <badly> reading a story 40 or maybe 35 years ago about Norway. It seems that a number of cheap machine guns were dropped to resistance groups during WW2. It was figured that there were still something like 800 or 700 of these firearms among the civilian population and the Norwegian government wanted to collect and dispose of them. They offered a no questions asked buyback program to get them but no one took them up on it.
;-)

C.J.V. - bet there are more than a few illegal weapons among the civilian population in Finland and Sweden too, me
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What happened in Australia, let me see... You mean that they haven't had a mass shooting in 25 years?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
They saw what happened in Australia and they're not having it.

Read a similar article but it did mention a gun buy back provision that would start in a couple weeks. However, if you gave up your firearm early, you wouldn't be eligible for the cash. So we will see when the money starts flowing on how compliant the Canadians are.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
What happened in Australia, let me see... You mean that they haven't had a mass shooting in 25 years?

Nice try, but pffft. The Australians are now subjects rather than free citizens, just like in England. Their covid restrictions are evidence of an "out of control" oppressive government, unchecked by the fear of an armed citizenry.

Mass shooting numbers are mostly hype (gang related shootings and shootings at POC parties are included in the numbers) and legitimate ones (e.g., at schools) could be stopped by good guys with a gun. The numerous times that mass shooting have been stopped by a legally armed citizen are simply not reported. You would be well served to revise your critic of the RTKBA, it has probably made your life better in numerous ways. An armed society is a polite society.

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
What happened in Australia, let me see... You mean that they haven't had a mass shooting in 25 years? - flightdoc

-----------------

On the other side of that coin, how many robberies, rapes, assaults, kidnappings, home invasions, car jackings, and so on have occurred that could have been prevented if the poor victims could have effectively defended themselves?

Look up Defensive Gun Use (DGU) statistics if you really want to understand this.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
What happened in Australia, let me see... You mean that they haven't had a mass shooting in 25 years? </i.

Oh really?

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/264154
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/11/asia/australia-osmington-bodi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/11...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The number of people killed in "mass shootings" do not even come close to the number of people murdered other ways. They do provide a handy excuse for governments to oppress their citizens.
Countries like Canada and Australia have Parliamentary government particularly suitable for legal suppression of minorities, and they do not have a 2nd Amendment.

If Lefties want to do away with that 2nd amendment in the US there is a legal way to do it, write and pass a new one voiding it. Just as was done with that failed Prohibition amendment. That had popular support, voiding the 2nd Amendment does not.

Nobody knows for sure what percentage of US households own a gun. Polls are worthless, would you volunteer info about that to some random pollster? Not me.

The biggest mass murder in US was 9/11 ,an "airplane crime" .Thus we should ban airplanes
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Gun Violence Archive, frequently cited by the press, defines a mass shooting as firearm violence resulting in at least four people being shot at roughly the same time and location, excluding the perpetrator.[8][9] Using this definition, there have been 2,128 mass shootings since 2013, roughly one per day.[8][10]

You are trying to minimize a significant issue in this country, a problem that no other country has to our extent.

But help me understand how the second amendment helps keep us free.

It is supposed that an armed well-regulated militia keeps the government in check. Where and when do these militias meet and train and who commands them?
How is it decided the government has gone too far and action is needed?
Who gets to decide? Is it acceptable to shoot a congressman playing softball?
Can you be a militia of one?
If 10,000 militia members storm the capital, is that enough for legitimacy?
Is the government really intimidated by citizenry with small arms?
Is intimidation alone enough or when is action needed?
How do you know when it is time to take up arms, and how do you know you are not just a bit unhinged?
Are we looking at another Civil War type event? How did that work out last time?
Are you serious? Standing down the most powerful armed forces the world has ever known with light arms?

This thesis that guns make us safe is a bit thin for me. Every country where firearms are freely available has a high number of gun deaths. And being armed is far more to make one confrontational than polite.

fd
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
" Every country where firearms are freely available has a high number of gun deaths." Also every country where there are lots of cars has lots of " car deaths" If "gun deaths" is valid so is "car deaths", water deaths " etc . You need to look up definition of Militia when Constitution was written, And the militia bit is a subordinate clause .Discussed at length and not too sensibly here.https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-t...

"Gun Violence Archive, frequently cited by the press, defines a mass shooting as firearm violence resulting in at least four people being shot at roughly the same time and location, excluding the perpetrator.[8][9] Using this definition, there have been 2,128 mass shootings since 2013, roughly one per day.[8][10]. Yes and many of those shot survived. A drop in the bucket compared to the number of plain one on one street shootings mostly over drugs. Another failed ban by government


To me it is all about my constitutional rights. I have others too, and am also interested in protecting them There are probably as many functional firearms in this country as people. From a practical matter outlawing them would be no more effectual than outlawing alcohol. Almost no criminal would turn them in, neither would lots of non criminals

Lack of guns did not prevent all those Rwanda deaths. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26875506 , machetes worked fine. But I guess you are OK with knives
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
This thesis that guns make us safe is a bit thin for me. - flightdoc

==================

Of course you do.... How would have these 500,000 to 3,000,000 would be victims per year fared if people of your ilk prevented them from defending themselves and their families. Do you even care because guns are just so icky.

Note the stats are just reported DGU's. The actual number is no doubt much higher. Law abiding citizens are not the problem, guns are not the problem, criminals are the problem. The liberal answer to criminals, lets stop prosecuting them.

https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-g...

Defensive Gun Uses in the U.S.

Updated December 26, 2021

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Nobody knows for sure what percentage of US households own a gun. Polls are worthless, would you volunteer info about that to some random pollster? Not me."


If gun ownera are hesitant to volunteer data, I wonder how the NRA-ILA came up with these numbers? This is from a story they posted just last month:

"More Guns — Since the early 1990s, the number of privately-owned firearms has more than doubled, from about 192 million to more than 405 million - including more than 167 million handguns. Americans acquire roughly 10 million new firearms annually. More than 19.48 million Americans have carry permits".

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/crime-criminal-justice/...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If gun ownera are hesitant to volunteer data, I wonder how the NRA-ILA came up with these numbers? This is from a story they posted just last month:

"More Guns — Since the early 1990s, the number of privately-owned firearms has more than doubled, from about 192 million to more than 405 million - including more than 167 million handguns. Americans acquire roughly 10 million new firearms annually. More than 19.48 million Americans have carry permits".

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/crime-criminal-justice/......


Very simple I.F. In order to legally purchase a firearm in the U.S.A. from a licensed dealer, one must submit to a background check. If one passes, they are allowed to purchase the firearm(s). The government (and NRA) can calculate how many firearms each dealer buys to sell each year and which type. .

I can sell a firearm to another person or I can sell it on consignment through a licensed dealer. Since the 80s, I have sold a number of firearms but all of them were through a licensed dealer. The dealer does the paperwork and takes a cut of the asking price of the firearm. If said firearm is later used in a crime, the police can’t come back and charge me with anything since it went through the licensed dealer.
;-)

C.J.V. - picked up more than a few firearms in my almost 80 years living, me
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
How would have these 500,000 to 3,000,000 would be victims per year fared if people of your ilk prevented them from defending themselves and their families.

Even though I'm bigger and stronger than the average man, each passing year I'm less able to win a one on one hand to hand combat scenario. Even doubt a two on one now unless I land a lucky first punch. No way three on one or more. Father Time is undefeated.

I've personally known only one man win a five on one hand to hand scenario and he happened to be the world middle weight kick boxing champion at the time. But if one of them had a firearm he would have been the former world champion.

God created men but Sam Colt made them equal.

JLC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mauser

I am fine with guns for home defense. That was not my question. I am armed myself. My question was around reigning in the government with an armed citizenry.

An ancillary to me is that, too easy access to arms leads to unnecessary civil violence. Licensure and regulation of gun ownership does not lead to a subjugated citizenry from what I can see in my travels, and in my reading.

It seems to me that the mistaken belief that profligate access to arms keeps us free is a very thin premise. Hence my series of questions about how armed resistance would look today.

If you served in the armed forces you know what weapon discipline is and that is sadly lacking in general with our citizenry.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I am fine with guns for home defense. That was not my question. I am armed myself. My question was around reigning in the government with an armed citizenry.

Sure you are, LOL. An armed citizenry keeps the govt goons from treading where they have no rights. They want you to be a subject rather than a citizen. Thereafter the voting booth does the job. We the people replace the gun grabbers with politicians who respect the rights granted to the citizenry in the Constitution.

An ancillary to me is that, too easy access to arms leads to unnecessary civil violence. Licensure and regulation of gun ownership does not lead to a subjugated citizenry from what I can see in my travels, and in my reading.

You should broaden your readings. What civil violence? The only violence we see is from the leftist thugs and for the most part they just use bricks and molotov cocktails. Funny that Rittenhouse lawfully used a firearm to defend himself against 3 violent attackers.

It seems to me that the mistaken belief that profligate access to arms keeps us free is a very thin premise

I haven't yet seen government agents descending on the homes of private citizens demanding arms registration or surrender. I wonder why? Maybe they are afraid of getting shot?

If you served in the armed forces you know what weapon discipline is and that is sadly lacking in general with our citizenry.

BS. Firearm training and instruction is readily available. Citizens tend to seek out that instruction if they choose to go armed. Twenty three states now have Constitutional carry and we have seen no uptick in violence in those states. It is generally blue states that seem to have a problem with weapon handling.

In summary, the 2nd does not require training or licensing. It was put in place by the Founders to provide for the common defense, for personal protection, and to keep the government from trampling on our other Constitutional rights. You should quit believing everything you read or hear from the leftists who what to disarm you or place restrictions on your rights. All they want is to control you.

That pesky 'ol Second Amendment, it brings out the hypocrite is just about everyone!

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Rittenhouse lawfully used a firearm to defend himself against 3 violent attackers.:

I can see it now,long ago as a teenager. I am walking out of the house with a rifle, and tell my Dad I was going to a protest rally. I wouldn't have made it past the front door, would have been the recipient of a one way discussion (Dad doing all the talking, me doing all the listening), and I would have never seen that rifle again. One has to wonder what kind of parent allowed this to happen.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I can see it now,long ago as a teenager. I am walking out of the house with a rifle, and tell my Dad I was going to a protest rally. I wouldn't have made it past the front door, would have been the recipient of a one way discussion (Dad doing all the talking, me doing all the listening), and I would have never seen that rifle again. One has to wonder what kind of parent allowed this to happen.

If only all the dads did that for the people who were rioting so it did not take place at all!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I can see it now,long ago as a teenager. I am walking out of the house with a rifle, and tell my Dad I was going to a protest rally. - ICF

=================

Your straw man reveals your ignorance of the facts in the Rittenhouse case. Do you rely solely on CNN and MSNBC for news?

Kyle did not leave his home in Illinois carrying a rifle. The rifle was already in Wisconsin.

Kyle lived with his mother in Illinois. Kyle's dad already lived in Kenosha.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I can see it now, long ago as a teenager. I am walking out of the house with a rifle, and tell my Dad I was going to a protest rally.

If you're trying to make the case that Kyle Rittenhouse was going to a protest rally to be an observer and maybe "get some action", you would be a liar. Rittenhouse went because he had volunteered to help protect small businesses in the area from being destroyed by leftist rioter thugs. He was also going to provide medical aid to any persons who may have suffered injury at the hands of leftist rioter thugs. He took the rifle to protect himself in the event he was attacked by leftist rioter thugs. Choosing to be armed was a prudent decision on his part since he was attacked by three different leftist rioter thugs that night. Your comments make you complicit with the leftist rioter thugs who caused all the damage that night. Your position is appalling.

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Rittenhouse went because he had volunteered to help protect small businesses in the area from being destroyed by leftist rioter thugs."

He could have volunteered at a food bank, or a V.A. Hospital. Both efforts would have provided great benefit to those organizations and be both heroic and patriotic. But instead, he chose to take a rifle into a known trouble area under the guise of "providing protection". He went looking for a gunfight and found one - surprise, surprise.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Kyle lived with his mother in Illinois. Kyle's dad already lived in Kenosha."

So the gun was at his Dad's house in Kenosha? Once again, how did his Dad let him walk out of the house with a rifle to go to a protest? This entire story defies rational logic. And he's being made out to be some kind of patriot and hero. Rather he's nothing more that a troubled kid from a broken home, who decided to take the law into his own hands as judge, jury and executioner. No wonder this country is going down the tubes fast.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
So the gun was at his Dad's house in Kenosha? Once again, how did his Dad let him walk out of the house with a rifle to go to a protest? - ICF

----------------

And once again, you show your ignorance of the facts of the case.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
He could have volunteered at a food bank, or a V.A. Hospital. Both efforts would have provided great benefit to those organizations and be both heroic and patriotic. But instead, he chose to take a rifle into a known trouble area under the guise of "providing protection". He went looking for a gunfight and found one - surprise, surprise.

He went there to help protect his hometown from leftist rioter thugs. You seem to be pouting that an armed patriot survived not one but three deadly attacks on his person? He was found not guilty in a court of law. None so blind as a leftist.

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"He went there to help protect his hometown from leftist rioter thugs."

That's the job for professionals. His time would have been better spent helping at a V.A. hospital, assisting the real Patriots in this country.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
>>"He went there to help protect his hometown from leftist rioter thugs."<<

That's the job for professionals. - ICF


-----------------

You may be surprised to learn this, but the professionals do not have a "duty to protect."

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again
.
.
.
“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,”
.
.
.
... more at the link
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
He could have volunteered at a food bank, or a V.A. Hospital. Both efforts would have provided great benefit to those organizations and be both heroic and patriotic. But instead, he chose to take a rifle into a known trouble area under the guise of "providing protection". He went looking for a gunfight and found one - surprise, surprise.

They could have donated money for people instead of rioted. surprise surprise.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
That's the job for professionals. His time would have been better spent helping at a V.A. hospital, assisting the real Patriots in this country.

From what I understand, the police were told to stand down and let the leftist rioter thugs do whatever they wanted.

Regarding a better use of his time, I thought he did a great job of sending a message to leftist rioter thugs that if they should attack private citizens at future riots, they might suffer a similar fate as the thugs that attacked him. I'd say that was time well spent for the safety and security of the general populace.

You're just angry that a private citizen protected his life from leftist rioter thugs in a completely legal manner and was vindicated in a court of law...go pound sand ICF.

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I'd say that was time well spent for the safety and security of the general populace."

Hypothetically, if he was killed (and I most certainly don't wish that on him) would it have still been worth his time? Leave the defense of someone else's property to someone else - whether that be the indivdual property owners, or the police.

If he was defending his own home against attack, I totally understand and his actions would have been justified. But to go to another town and play hero, what's the point?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Leave the defense of someone else's property to someone else - whether that be the indivdual property owners, or the police...But to go to another town and play hero, what's the point?

Spoken like a true NJ leftist. By your logic, if your neighbor's house was on fire and you could do something about it, you would choose to hide in your basement and leave the job to others? Others who may or may not respond? His father lived in that town, so in effect it was his town. You really should be thankful that there are men like Kyle Rittenhouse in this nation, so folks like you can feel safe at someone else's credit.

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"You may be surprised to learn this, but the professionals do not have a "duty to protect."

I totally get that. But if he didn't go there in the first place, this would have never become an issue. I still having difficulty why he would go out of his way to seek a volatile stuation to protect property that was not his own.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If ny neighbor's house was on fire, I would most certainly respond in some way in an attempt to help. But I would also call 911 - the fire department, EMT's, etc. - and get the expert professionals on site who are best qualified to render aid.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
But if he didn't go there in the first place, this would have never become an issue.

If they were not destroying peoples lives who had nothing to do with their issues this would not be a problem.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
If ny neighbor's house was on fire, I would most certainly respond in some way in an attempt to help. But I would also call 911 - the fire department, EMT's, etc. - and get the expert professionals on site who are best qualified to render aid.

Which is exactly what KR did, he volunteered to help protect a car dealership from being destroyed by fire. The dealership had another location destroyed by arson and didn't want the same thing to happen at that location. Expert professionals were unable or unwilling to help. So KR did exactly what YOU claim you would do, he helped his neighbor. Think about it.

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"So KR did exactly what YOU claim you would do, he helped his neighbor. Think about it."

Nope - If a neighbor's house was on fire, I'd call 911, then bang on doors and windows to try and alert them. But most certainly I would not attempt to enter the burning building. The professional LEO's, firefighters, first responders, etc., are far more qualified than me to render aid - that's what our tax dollars pay for.

I would NOT do what this kid did because I am neither qualified, nor willing to enter a combat situation, with a weapon. Like the neighbor's house on fire, law enforcement is a job for trained, educated professionals, not an amateur gun slinger who decided to play Rambo with a rifle - especially when it isn't his property.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I would NOT do what this kid did because I am neither qualified, nor willing to enter a combat situation, with a weapon. - ICF

-------------

I get that. And agree that many or most people would choose not to intervene in a situation where they put themselves at risk. If that is your decision, it should be respected.

But where I part company with you is when you condemn others who make a different choice and put themselves at risk to protect fellow citizens. They have just as much of a right to provide help as you do to not to. People willing to dive in and help others in peril should be admired. Shame on you for denigrating what is a noble and legal act.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But where I part company with you is when you condemn others who make a different choice and put themselves at risk to protect fellow citizens. They have just as much of a right to provide help as you do to not to. People willing to dive in and help others in peril should be admired. Shame on you for denigrating what is a noble and legal act.

Spot on.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Shame on you for denigrating what is a noble and legal act."

Well it may be legal, in my opinion, it is stupid and idiotic. One doesn't walk into a volatile situation armed with a rifle and not expect to be engaged by someone else who equally wants to shoot someone/thing.

I have read in this very forum many expert shooters say their absolute last option is to fire their weapon, and they keep it concealed so not to draw attention to themselves. Some even said, they's get out of a situation before the need to use their weapon even came up. I saw the video of this kid walking down the street waving the rifle around, the exact opposite of what reasonable and rational posters expressed here. What did he think would happen? People would invite him to sit down and play 500 card rummy?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I saw the video of this kid walking down the street waving the rifle around, the exact opposite of what reasonable and rational posters expressed here. What did he think would happen? People would invite him to sit down and play 500 card rummy?

Legal for him to carry a rifle, probably not so for him to carry a concealed pistol. He only had it unslung when he was trying to evade his attackers. IIRC the leftist rioter thugs who attacked him had criminal records and were not legal to carry firearms at all, yet they threatened him with those illegally carried firearms.

You're still pouting, maybe you should take a break from posting on this subject before you have an episode or some other malady.

Rope
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"You're still pouting, maybe you should take a break from posting on this subject before you have an episode or some other malady."

I'm not pouting, but rather wondering where this obsession with guns comes from. It was not this way at all when I was a kid growing up. No one I knew anywhere owned guns, went hunting, went target shooting, etc. It was not part of our lives at all. We never saw a bunch of big fat guys armed with rifles storm a statehouse in an attempt to kidnap the Governor, as did happen in Michigan recently. Or like I saw early in the pandemic, two guys with rifles standing in front of a woman's barber shop in Texas pointing their weapons at people wearing masks. Or just this past week, a woman at a school Board of Education meeting saying that she was coming back when school opened Monday with her guns so her kid didn't have to wear a mask. This is just crazy stuff. This kind of thing can't possibly have been on the mind of the guys who wrote the 2nd amendment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
...I'm not pouting, but rather wondering where this obsession with guns comes from....

Look in the mirror. Where does Your obsession with guns comes from? Is this the only board you ever post on? Why?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Why?"

Because it is my first amendment right to do so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Why?"
------
Because it is my first amendment right to do so.



So, your obsession with guns is a religion to you? And you can write about it, too?
Wow, the U.S. really is a great place!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
. . . It was not this way at all when I was a kid growing up. No one I knew anywhere owned guns, went hunting, went target shooting, etc. It was not part of our lives at all. . . .

You were in a different generation than me. I was born and raised in N.J. back in the 40s & 50s, back before the liberal politicians tried to ban firearms. Back in the 50s, I had a 12-gauge “long tom” shotgun that I mostly used to hunt ducks in Barnegat Bay and deer in the Pine Barrens (never did get a shot at Bambi, me). Many of the kids I grew up with had .22 rifles for plinking and shotguns for hunting (back in them days, only shotguns could be used for deer and small game. BB guns were illegal but more than a few of us had them. A number of older men had military rifles and pistols, souvenirs of WWII.

Back then we had to be at least 16 years old to buy ammunition, but since we had to be 17 for a driver’s license, we didn’t have an I.D. to prove our age so they would sell it to us when we told them we were 16. Back then most hardware stores, auto parts stores, etc., etc. sold ammunition. One needed a permit to buy pistols but one could buy rifles and shotguns at 18 with no paperwork. Walk into a store, tell them which gun you wanted, pay your money and walk out. All that started to change in the late 60s. In 1968, they started with a firearms owner’s I.D. card, which was free and not mandatory. A year or two later one had to show an I.D. to buy pistol ammunition, including .22 rimfire ammo.

Back in the 40s, 50s and 60s, Lenape Park in Cranford had a Union County run pistol, small bore rifle and shotgun ranges that were open on the weekend. I used to shoot trap with that old “long tom” before I gave it to my little cousin who lived in Toms River. There was an outdoor range near Watchung that I used to shoot big bore rifles like my 45-70, 300 H & H and 22-250 at. Ray’s Sport shop on Rt. 22 near Scotch Planes had an indoor pistol range in the basement and usually had a stock of over 1000 firearms on hand. They had a fire there in 1970 or 71 which leveled the building. They later rebuilt 5 or 4 miles further west on Rt. 22, with an indoor range for pistols & muzzle loading rifles. The liberal gun laws finally put them out of business in the late 80s/early 90s.
;-(

C.J.V. - Cranford High School even had a Rod & Gun club back then, yes
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You description is very interesting, but none of that was my world at all growing up in NJ. I was not aware of anyone in either my high school or small state college class (also in NJ) who owned guns and hunted, went to the range, etc.. Lots of fishing - yes. One of my buddies worked during the Summer on his Uncle's deep sea ocean fishing boat that sailed out of the Belmar marina.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
You description is very interesting, but none of that was my world at all growing up in NJ. I was not aware of anyone in either my high school or small state college class (also in NJ) who owned guns and hunted, went to the range, etc.

Did you ever think that people in different areas and of different backgrounds do different things?
There are hundreds of millions of guns owned by people in the USA, obviously you were not near them or they did not tell you about owning or shooting them.

Good grief
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Wow, the U.S. really is a great place!"

It is indeed! It doesn't need to be made great again; it has been great for hundreds of years.
Print the post Back To Top