Darrenf

Thank you. I imagine you would agree that the loss of property is no where near as bad as the loss of life or limb too?

For those of you who would use deadly force to protect property when your person is not in danger, I ask you this, is deadly force your last resort, or your tool of first opportunity?

You're so cute. Yeah, my games of logic and reason are not for you, obviously.

Already been covered, since you seem pretty good at rereading things, try it one more time.

They say sarcasm isn't understood until sometime in one's mid teens. Perhaps you missed the words "I mean", which is an indicator of a sarcastic comment. But please, go on about how I am for more gun laws.

Who didn't see that coming? A saying about chess and pigeons comes to mind. Yes you are right in refuting the points I never made. So again, you are right in that I won't respond to them, just like I said. Want a cookie?

And yet more Strawmen. When you can argue the points I make, and not what you think I mean, or things I didn't even say, I'll engage you, but don't expect a response to this nonsense.

Then I guess you'll be happy to forfeit your rights. I mean, if you can't be expected to understand what's reasonable, then it stands to reason you should not have weapons.

You're still missing the point that she too made a bad decision. Your constant justification just proves my point, some of us are just looking for a reason to shoot someone. I don't care what the anti's think, I care what we think. And if we are constantly showing that we just want to shoot someone to mete out justice unilaterally, that will result in further restrictions of my rights.

No argument here that a lot of penalties do not match the severity of the crimes.

No one is defending the guy breaking into a house. If you were reasonable you wouldn't put forth that straw man. No one is saying he isn't risking his life. What is not reasonable is to kill someone just because you might lose an object. Only threats to body are reasonably met with deadly force. Your Caps lock rant does nothing to help portray you as reasonable.

Has nothing to do with NJ and everything to do with being a reasonable human being. It's shit like this that gives the anti's ammunition because they are right, some owners are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

And there is the goalpost move. You stated you can defend property with deadly force (in the context of conversation about people shooting someone running away with a tv) and now you have shifted it to the presumption that someone in your house is putting you at risk. No shit, that is self defense, not defense of property.

Did you miss this part?? © Deadly force does not become justifiable under subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection unless the actor reasonably believes that: (i) The person against whom it is employed has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or (ii) The use of force other than deadly force to terminate or prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of bodily harm. An actor within a dwelling shall be presumed to have a reasonable belief in the existence of the danger. The State must rebut this presumption by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'd like to see proof that you can use deadly force to defend property in NJ. (Goal post shift in 3...2.......1...........)

My scope ordered yesterday shipped today. Just a FYI

Thanks, went there after seeing this and also found the scope I wanted was on sale!

Sold out.

I ordered one yesterday. Will give my impressions once I shoot it.

From the issue date, not pickup date.

I just bought this for $19.99 a box at Bass Pro today.

And just got the lame coupon along with the cancellation.

Placed an order a minute ago. No email yet.

No issues with my wife's SR22 yet. Had it about a year, already have about 3500 rounds through it.

They still honor Utah, so you're good to go.