'Open Carry' Law Contoversy: Gun Owner Cited

jillio said:
I don't know what particular brand of Buddhism you are studying, but they don't condone murder in any denomination I have investigated. Nor do they condone vigilante actions. Nor do they celebrate the death of another human being.
Click to expand...

murder? vigilantism? celebration of death? :lol:

you talk too much. let's stick with fact at hand, shall we? Buddhism condones self-defense even if the consequence is death.
 
jillio said:
What dead victim are you referring to?

How is it a contradiction? You are really reaching now.:laugh2:
Click to expand...

any victim who was unable to defend oneself cuz it's illegal.
 
Jiro said:
murder? vigilantism? celebration of death? :lol:

you talk too much. let's stick with fact at hand, shall we? Buddhism condones self-defense even if the consequence is death.
Click to expand...

You certainly appear to be celebrating the death of those you call "criminals" all without due process.
 
Banjo said:
Then why do people rob stores?
Click to expand...

Yeah it may have a robbery intent, but still, you can't be 100%, or even 110% sure you knew that was what he was going to do.
If a Charles Manson Jr. was robbing that motel, could you have said for sure that's all he intended to do?

Some men (or women) aren't meant to be reasoned with, they can't be completely comprehended. Criminals commit crimes for a reason, whether it be for money, personal gain, personality, serial killer, whatever, or a combo of these...
Now that I look back what I typed, feels like I took a little bit out of Dark Knight, but funnily enough it does seem to apply.
 
naisho said:
Yeah it may have a robbery intent, but still, you can't be 100%, or even 110% sure you knew that was what he was going to do.
If a Charles Manson Jr. was robbing that motel, could you have said for sure that's all he intended to do?

Some men (or women) aren't meant to be reasoned with, they can't be completely comprehended. Criminals commit crimes for a reason, whether it be for money, personal gain, personality, serial killer, whatever, or a combo of these...
Now that I look back what I typed, feels like I took a little bit out of Dark Knight, but funnily enough it does seem to apply.
Click to expand...

You can't be certain that was all he WASN'T going to do.:cool2:

You don't try to reason with a robber. You give them the money and they go away. After all, any reasonable business owner is insured against losses coming from a robbery. The money can be replaced. Human life cannot.
 
jillio said:
It is not illegal in any state to defend oneself.
Click to expand...

it is in NJ. that's why victims get killed. and if a criminal survives from defender's self-defense attack... he has every legal rights to sue for injury.
 
jillio said:
You can't be certain that was all he WASN'T going to do.:cool2:
Click to expand...

that's why we will stick with fact. not what-if or coulda or woulda game.

FACT: there was ARMED robbery in progress
FACT: armed victim exercised his self-defense rights
FACT: victims were saved. criminal was dead
 
jillio said:
You certainly appear to be celebrating the death of those you call "criminals" all without due process.
Click to expand...

what do you call a person who was robbing something with a gun?
 
Jiro said:
that's why we will stick with fact. not what-if or coulda or woulda game.

FACT: there was ARMED robbery in progress
FACT: armed victim exercised his self-defense rights
FACT: victims were saved. criminal was dead
Click to expand...

Then you need to come up with some facts.
 
jillio said:
You are going to have to show me the law that says it is illegal in NJ to defend yourself. I'm not buying it.
Click to expand...

what do you think why they made it extremely difficult for us to own guns? what do you think why they laughed at Castle Doctrine law when it was proven effective in other states?

and what do you think why the state allowed criminal to sue a victim for injury?
 
Jiro said:
what do you think why they made it extremely difficult for us to own guns? what do you think why they laughed at Castle Doctrine law when it was proven effective in other states?

and what do you think why the state allowed criminal to sue a victim for injury?
Click to expand...

Already provided the link that proves you wrong. Scroll back.
 
jillio said:
Then you need to come up with some facts.
Click to expand...

that's what I just did. and you ignored it. You continued to play with what-if game.... something that never happened.
 
Jiro said:
*shrug* we know your usual game. it's not working.
Click to expand...

Funny. I just clicked on it in my post and it worked just fine.

Then go to st.nj.us. Easy to find. Better yet, just google NJ self defense laws. That's where I got it.

Now, take the time to read the law and come back a bit more informed.

Here's a little text to get you started:

Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force
42 justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of
43 this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward
44 another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that
45 such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting
 
jillio said:
You are going to have to show me the law that says it is illegal in NJ to defend yourself. I'm not buying it.

Nevermind....here's a link for you:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A0500/159_I1.PDF

Wrong again.
Click to expand...

Can I do that at parking lot? or in my car?

the law says no. Despite of defending myself from armed thug.... I will be criminalized and put in same category as a violent criminal.
 
Back
Top