first of all, in this hypothetical, you're living in a homogeneous white nation. there are no blacks. (this is to avoid meme answers.) non-lethal weaponry that has proven to be just as effective as regular firearms exists, they cost the same amount too. you point, click, and the target is incapacitated.
in such a world, should a law be put forth outlawing and criminalizing the use of deadly force? should regular guns be confiscated, and should the people caught possessing them be criminally penalized?
Nope. The criminal will just lie and say you invited him in and then sue you for attacking him.
see 2nd amendment next question.
No, none of that has anything to do with the reasons citizens should own guns. It's so they can overthrow the government.
What do you mean by "white nation"? Are there slavs?
Slavs aren't white.
No. >even with all of these absurd conditions that could never ever come to pass
If somebody breaks into my home trying to harm me or my family, they don't get to wake up. Period.
>next question. that's all i got. a liberal posed this at me a few years ago and it really made me think. it was more about a break-in though.
if you're operating under the notion that the reason you should defend yourself is because life is valuable, then you should value the life of the person who's breaking into your house too. they might just be mentally ill, retarded, or desperate.
i guess most people 'round these parts are operating under the notion that THEIR life is valuable, but in an ideal society, i think we should value other's too.
>you're living in a homogeneous white nation so no actual need for self defense?
for like home defence or something, non-lethal can be fine, but for memeing the revolutionary government into existence you need the loss of life to your enemy.
The reason why you should defend yourself is because you have no obligation to be a victim. You end the threat in whichever way you can, if that means the attackers life is forfeit then so be it. But gun ownership is two fold, one for personal safety and the other is for country integrity.
can we start a /Questions tht do not deserve their own thread/ in /pol?
>Implying 2A has anything to do with defending your home from a criminal.
The second amendment is for fighting tyranny. And the same faggots that have been telling me for years that you don't need a firearm to fight tyranny in the US are the same faggots that are in the streets screaming that donald trump is a tyrant.
go for it amigo
you can make this thread into that if you like. someone else pose a thought experiment or a retarded question. i've already been BTFO, this wasn't as much of deep moral conundrum as i remember it being
you have that backwards faggot. The preservation of liberty is the first and most important justification for the 2A. Self defense from petty criminals is just an added bonus.
but didn't they ban you for doing it?
if by "didn't" you mean "don't" my answer is: i dunno
The ability for either are congealed .... faggot
In what manner does this white population in an all white nation have to check the power of its government?
Self defense is a byproduct of the 2A, not the primary or sole intent. Come back when you understand the Constitution better.
We stay armed so that we stay free. Self defense is not the intent of the reason for the 2nd amendment. It's to keep government in check. If we lose our firearms we lose our freedom.
Bad thought experiment
yeah yeah yeah, i forgot this was 'merica i was imagining some other society, one that didn't have a 2a should've added that
pose a better one yourself, preferably on the same issue (guns/self defense)
yes but when people try to argue for the 2A from the criminal perspective you end up giving faggot liberals talking points that they don't even deserve hence OP's question.
Liberals have already done the work for us. For example.
Liberals said that the 2nd amendment was not a necessity in the fight against tyranny because that wouldn't happen in current year. Now these faggots are out in the street calling donald trump a tyrant. Use there retardation against them. This is one of those "I told you so" moments that should be thrown in the face of leftists every chance you get.
>if you're operating under the notion that the reason you should defend yourself is because life is valuable, then you should value the life of the person who's breaking into your house too They should value their own life enough not to get into that situation. They are not your responsibility, you and those who live with you are. Responsibility matters. If someone gets killed when they try to steal or kill others it's entirely their own fault since they are supposed to be responsible for themselves. You can't pin the blame on someone who was taking care of the lives they are responsible for.
There are no talking points period. The 2A has been slowly eroded and will continue to diminish. The fact that every state isn't stand your ground should be alarming as fuck. There needs to be a culling of the population, too many cucks.
>They should value their own life enough not to get into that situation. what if they can't? for the reasons i gave: retardation, mental illness, desperation (i'm just talking about a break-in right now, and whether or not you should use lethal force to put them down if other just as effective means are available) >They are not your responsibility, you and those who live with you are. me and my family are my primary responsibility, but don't we have at least some duty to the other people in our society? namely, protecting their right to life? should it really be forfeit for breaking and entering?
this hypothetical is so absurdly unrealistic that it's useless for exploring any sort of concept connected to the real world.
Absolutely agree with you. All these braindead fucking liberals legislating gun rights means in my home state of NY the AR-15s look like link related
Luckily my collection of firearms was pretty much complete before the ban. I swear I want to drag the leftists that did this shit out of there homes and execute them in the streets.
>given a mystical hypotherical does gun control finally make sense?
Stand Your Ground is actually a more modern concept.
Duty to Flee ouside of the home was the Common Law default.
Much of the South didn't even get conceal carry until the 90s.
Support for things like banning semi automatic handguns was at its apex in the late 50s and has never reached that level since.
Gun Control groups used to have bold names like "Coalition to Ban Handguns" with express manifestos to reduce gun ownership to the occssional hunting rifle/shotgun with heavy permit requirementss.
Now its wishy washy "Common Sense Gun Saftey", handguns are untouchable, and the fight over semi auto rifles and double-digit ammo capacity has never reached mid 90s level of support again.
Stay vigilant, but the overall tide since 1980 has been towards gun rights.
>should it really be forfeit for breaking and entering Yes. They know the dangers and don't care. Mental retardation is not an excuse.
>what if they can't? for the reasons i gave: retardation, mental illness, desperation
the state should be proactively gassing people who are so defective that they can't function without endangering others through violent crime
You forget that the presence of potentially lethal force works as an inhibiting factor and deters criminals from breaking in in the first place.
>stun guns are unrealistic the non-lethal/less-than-lethal weaponry we have now is pretty incredible already, ten years from now it will be even crazier
reliability of stun guns for disabling suspects is utterly abysmal. they have not been improving. the only function they serve is to reduce legal liability for police departments as compared to batons.
No it's a waste of time. But here's a good question; why don't Americans that own the most guns rebel against the most evil empire in history?
Inb4 military; most in the military are southern whites.
>But muh freedom we da greatest country ever.
Nothing we have today is what the founding fathers designed for or planned our county has been hijacked by foreigners from back in the late 1800s
>one shot or maybe two shot tazers that can be thwarted by thick denim, wind, or neurological chance >even when they do land they only incapactaye someone enough so that MULTIPLE law enforcement officers can restrain and cuff them immediately
You retard you can't just keep tazing a mother fucker or else they die and unless you have a rope handy and know how to hogtie someone real fast one handed, your less than lethal does not permanently incapacitate a threat.
so keep some zip-ties (
ok now it's abundantly clear you're either a troll or an idiot
If you deny somebody their Human Rights your own Human rights are forfeit.
Break into my house and you are fair game.
i would argue that it is in fact a moral imperative to snuff a home invader, and that someone with access to weapons who did not kill an invader should be liable to misdemeanor fines.
Shoot him. Always shoot the dickwad.
fpbp. Now delete this cancerous slide thread.
Second post also best post.
Agreed, our people have lost all of their pride though. It'll be back
i had the same train of thought, but then i realized that these magic point-click machines are just as effective for a gov't overthrow.
as long as the population has access to the same 'arms' as the government, then we're all cool.
...meaning, in this hypothetical situation...if guns are outlawed in such a way that the government can no longer have them, but the army and the general population can both have click-stoppers, then that matches the intent.
The home should be a place of privacy and safety, fuck sub-humans who don't respect this notion
Invaders should be killed
if i didn't kill the fucker how would i get an erection?