You don't have a right to murder someone who enters your property. It depends on what they do when they are on your property. If he's got your 9-month old baby hostage with a knife, then by all means blow his head off.
If he's stealing your TV, you don't have the right to murder them. It's not difficult to understand.
Only niggers steal TVs, nothing wrong with blasting a nigger.
>If he's stealing your TV, you don't have the right to murder them. It's not difficult to understand.
of course you do. property rights trump nigger theft directives.
Your right to life ends when you threaten somebody else's.
someone taking your $400 TV isn't threatening your life
break into someones house and activate their flight or fight you get what you get, regardless of intent
I should be allowed to load an 8 pounder and split that nigger and my wall in 2 should I feel sufficiently threatened in my own home.
Who the fuck would give a knife to a baby hostage!?
This is too long to fit on your tombstone - try something shorter.
nah, you shouldnt. I mean not really. If some 16 year olf nigger is found in the middle of your living room holding your TV, you don't really have a right to murder them
Pretty sure anyone would take into account plausibly of the person who has chosen the break into your property probably isn’t the most legally minded individual. Sure some nignog might just break in wanting your TV, but he has already demonstrated he is willing to violate you private property and right to privacy by breaking in and attempting to steal shit so it is not a great leap in logic to assume he may result to violence possibly with a weapon if you attempted to stop him. Your suggestion also set a dangerous precedent of “hey I can break into that dudes home if he pulls a gun he’s in trouble, but if he attempts to subdue me physically I can whip out (insert weapon here) that I have hidden and hurt or kill him.” Your just empowering criminals and forcing law abiding citizens to play by a sort of rules of engagement that leaves them at a disadvantage.
If there is a stranger in my home, I do not know his intent. Should his intent be to cause me harm, I will be dead if I hesitate. Therefore, I must act swiftly with deadly force until the potential threat is neutralized.
Protecting property rights is an important part of ensuring the profit motive continues to function. Individuals will not invest in assets that they expect to be stolen. Regardless of whether or not you value the life of a thief over the goods he is stealing, the ability for the property owner to make that evaluation for themselves, and then act upon it, is a cornerstone of productive civilization.
Didnt read most of your post, but got the same soundbites i expected
1. I'm not "empowering criminals" by suggesting you consider the situation in front of you
2. Most countries in the world do not have the same gun freedom as the USA, and nobody has the mentality of just walking into homes
3. Leaping from one situation to another doesnt follow, and you're just trying to justify murdering people
Yes you should, retard. You have a right to defend your property with lethal force.
Most Western European countries and advanced economies have large populations that live in rented homes they don't own, this argument is flawed.
Kill Jews
>You don't have a right to murder someone who enters your property.
You apparently don't live where I do.
Stay out of my house, or die.
Yes, mothers DO have to worry about their precious little chimps dying over breaking into an American home.
I'd kill you without a second's consideration, if you broke into my home.
>I didnt read your post but heres why youre wrong
Not him but I can tell you drew the short straw
this. its mostly deterrence. you want not to have to use it but you want them to know your shit is not to be fucked with
>or now they know you have a gun and they break in when youre not home and take your gun safe
>just dont live around nogs. live in doors-unlocked america
You don't have the right to use lethal force if the situation does not require it. Someone accidentally treading on your flowerbed doesn't warrant extreme action, and taking this to its natural conclusion, proves everyone uses their brain to think before just murdering someone
>If he's stealing your TV, you don't have the right to murder them.
Yes I do. He's taking away my rights. In that case, the right to own property.
>you don't have the right to murder them
Idiot, I have a right to respond however the fuck I want to a threat, ESPECIALLY in my own home. What a fucking cuck you are
How do you know that's all he's there for faggot? and why not? What of the mental damage to residents when their piece of mind is also taken?
that's someones lively hood..
of course it is.
A man's home is his castle and the moment you invade it, those dwelling within have every right to assume you're there to harm them. This isn't a game. Don't break in to people's homes and you won't get shot. This is basic common law.
I bet you get your ass raped everytime you get robbed OP
I'm not taking any chances, there is so many instances of robberies turned into rapes turned into murders
>You don't have the right to use lethal force if the situation does not require it.
If someone tries to take my rights they give up their rights in the process.
>Someone accidentally treading on your flowerbed doesn't warrant extreme action, and taking this to its natural conclusion, proves everyone uses their brain to think before just murdering someone
Why do you think someone that takes the rights away from others deserves to live?
If your sound waves enter my private property I will enact my God-given right to launch a tomahawk missile up your ass. Shouldn't have tread on me.
t. Libertarian
>think before just murdering someone
>Fascist memeflag
>Wanting gun control
Typical fascist scum who wants to disarm the individuals. Please die.
See:
You are dead set on the nigger stealing a TV...also must feel nice to type Nigger right ?
Again many thieves do murder if they get caught.
I'd kill you for littering. You're worth much less than you think.
Commies disarm people. Fascists are them.
> Please die.
Anti-Whites like you first.
Taking your property, doesnt automatically mean you are being denied your right to property. Being denied your right to property typically involves the state making you a second class citizen who has no right to purchase property. Someone taking your TV, is not denying your right to property.
Well, of course it doesn't. But, you should have the option to defend yourself effectively if someone does decide to come on your property with ill intent.
you should have a right to dump the nigger in a wood chipper and go back to sleep.
shooting him is about reducing the rate of recidivism to zero. basically taking out society's trash. fuck him, and fuck you too. nigger.
Idgaf if I have the right or not, if somebody breaks into my house I'm going to shoot them in the back of the head without warning.
Jumping to conclusions wont help your argument. If he's there with your tv in his hands, halfway out the door, he's trying to take your property. Not rape your wife
I am an individualist anarchist you fucking mutt. I hate Zionism as much as you do, but don't make me believe into your shitty "muh white strong civilization" bullshit. Why do you even care for other whites when you call them cucks you self-righteous hypocrite?
See:
Well you also seem dead set on this nigger raping your wife, or at least fantasize and hypothesize over it to justify your murder fantasy,
It is entirely just to kill someone for stealing your TV. There is literally nothing wrong with that.
My mistake, I forgot to account for the fact that homes are literally the only thing you can own. Your flawless logic has beaten introductory economics once again.
Op it okay you do not want to get shot when you steal a tv but you should be keelhauled
Wrong
>Taking your property, doesnt automatically mean you are being denied your right to property.
are you nuts?
some takes your shit then you no longer have your shit, are you retarded?
shoot the thief in the face. recidivism rate then equals zero.
>If he's stealing your TV, you don't have the right to murder them.
why?
>Taking your property, doesnt automatically mean you are being denied your right to property.
Yes it is. They're taking something that cannot be regained.
> Being denied your right to property typically involves the state making you a second class citizen who has no right to purchase property.
And a thief takes what you have earned through hard work. If a thief steals your home it's the same as a thief stealing your TV.
> Someone taking your TV, is not denying your right to property.
How?
this is the OP
Why are you so emotionally attached to property? Why do you let property define who you are? Your character, your well-being and your actions define who you are. Not some cheap electronic device
I would be really careful not to shoot my TV when I truck that fucker. Give me your number and I'll send you a selfie of your dead boyfriend on my lawn.
>to take your property.
>Taking your property
they need to lose their weapons of war.
Good thing we have stand your ground laws
tell your sad tail of nigger life to these guys
>Didnt read most of your post
Clearly an intellectual interested in honest debate
1. Yes you are empowering them if the precedent is set that responding to a break in a robbery with a weapon could cause more trouble for the victim then the criminal you have given the criminal the edge by allowing him to set the severity of the response the victim is allowed to provide. Likewise with the hidden weapon example you apparently didn’t read if a homeowner attempts to subdue him with brute force and then the criminal whips out a knife or gun guess who is winning that
2.the fuck is that supposed to mean that they don’t have the mentality of just walking into homes.
3a situation can very rapidly change from “oh some tard broken in” to “of fuck he just whipped out a gun, but I wasn’t allowed to pull mine until he did so I’m fucked”
You make that sound like renting means forfeiting all of your rights.
It's amazing that western civilization has tolerated you creatures for so long.
If we are talking about property and ownership I had assumed you had the capacity to defend your worldview in all its forms.
Well no. Point a gun at him till the cops come and if he charges you or goes for a weapon unload on the rape ape
>I am an individualist anarchist you fucking mutt.
You're an anti-White faggot.
> I hate Zionism as much as you do, but don't make me believe into your shitty "muh white strong civilization" bullshit.
Race is the basis for civilization. The only reason White civilization is great is because of White people.
>Why do you even care for other whites
Because they're my family.
> when you call them cucks you self-righteous hypocrite?
You're not White, you're a race traitor.
>See:
Fuck your thread.
stand your ground
>guy breaks into your home
>gets shot because he's an asshole
>by the time the cops arrive, he has a kitchen knife near him with his fingerprints on it
Gee, officer, I guess he grabbed it from my kitchen. He came right at me with it.
He's dead. He was doing whatever I say he was and I say he was a rapist.
This is Texas nigger, I can shoot him if he's fleeing with my property. I can shoot you too faggot.
My commie detector is over 9000 better give you a free helicopter ride
>Why are you so emotionally attached to property?
If someone was trying to steal your winter coat in a blizzard you wouldn't fight to the death to keep it?
>some takes your shit then you no longer have your shit
A right is something that is exercised, not lived or defined. You have a right to vote. If the state takes away your right to vote, you don't have that right.
If in 2020 someone manages to vote Joe Biden on your behalf without your consent, you haven't lost your right to vote, you lost the opportunity to exercise the right.
I seriously believe you should have the right to mount his head on your wall.
>If he's stealing your TV, you don't have the right to murder them. It's not difficult to understand.
What's a better deterrent to egregiously violating someone's private residence and stealing their hard-earned property than the potential of getting a bullet for it? You should always show mercy if the criminal surrenders, but if they continue after they've been warned then shooting should be your duty.
No one has the right to enter your property or take your property without permission. Two wrongs cancel each other out nigger it's basic fuck fuck math dumbass.
>A right is something that is exercised, not lived or defined. You have a right to vote. If the state takes away your right to vote, you don't have that right.
You don't fucking get it. the state can't take away rights. Rights are inherent. even if they say you can't vote, you still have the right to vote.
>Taking your property, doesnt automatically mean you are being denied your right to property.
No, it does.
Moreover, we can just disagree on this point and that's okay. You let people steal from you, and be the better man. Call the police. 45 minutes later they'll arrive and you can fill out a form.
I'll kill them and, given the political climate, so long as I never apologize, insist that I was in the right through and through, I'll probably be okay.
"He said "hands up or I'll shoot!" to me.
Who's gonna tell me otherwise?
I think he's quoting starship troopers lol
>You should always show mercy if the criminal surrenders
>rights are inherent
Wrong. Rights exist only because the state defines them and upholds them. Without the state, your rights aren't secured by a collective power many times more powerful than yourself, and is defined just by you and not recognised by others. States give rights, and take away rights.
This world is not a movie, cunt, you don’t have the time nor are you calm enough in that situation to carefully scan the intruder for weapons before making the call whether or not to pull the trigger.
If someone is in my fucking home, without my permission, regardless of intent, it is a life or death situation and one of us is going to die.
You throw away your right to live the moment you decide to threaten mine.
>Wrong. Rights exist only because the state defines them and upholds them.
Wrong. They're called constitutionally protected rights, not constitutionally granted rights.
Our rights are inherent, therefore even if the government passes a law banning them, we still have those rights.
Otherwise, the government could pass a law turning you into a slave and according to your reasoning, you'd have to comply.
>Without the state, your rights aren't secured by a collective power many times more powerful than yourself
My rights are secured by my own actions to defend them.
>States give rights, and take away rights.
You're full of shit and you have no idea what you're talking about.
stop pretending everyone is some shaky handed runt like you that can't use his brain to review something in a tense situation. With your logic, the military would just shoot into darkness in every war because there just wasnt enough time
Nope, you're born with rights, and they're analogues of the same rights every animal is born with.
One of them is to defend yourself in whatever fashion you see fit.
Guns are for killing people that want to take those rights, be they criminals or government thugs.
Don't start nothin' won't be nothin'
Start shit with someone, and take your chances on being killed.
It's just like poking a bear.
pretty sure in Texas it's legal to waste him if he's stealing your neighbor's TV and is already walking down the street
god bless America
Time is the most valuable commodity. It can be taken from you but you can never get it back. Theft of possessions represent theft of labour and time.
Even if insurance pays for it, you are required to pay a deductible on top your premiums and that deductible can easily be more than the value of the TV itself. "Insurance'll pay for it" is how criminals justify theft.
I'm not even particularly attached to my possessions. Thieves still need to die.
Wrong.
Why should we take ANY chances? We should get to take the safest route every time.
>the military doesn't just randomly fire in the direction of threats hurr
That's actually exactly what we do 99% of the time faggot, so good self burn. lmao
defense of habitation is one of the most bulletproof legal constructions in existence and every time some stupid little uneducated faggot like you goes to court it will only make it stronger
>never been in a situation requiring use of a firearm
>does not realize how fast someone can shoot you if you don’t shoot first
It is quite literally a split second decision. You want to turn the corner and yell “h-hands up!! Or else I’ll shoot!!” you’ll have a bullet in you halfway through the sentence.
Yeah, they might not shoot you, they might just be there to steal your shit. But you only have to be wrong once and it’s over for you.
I have no obligation to show that level of mercy to someone who the only thing I know about them is they’re willing to put my life at risk for their own gain. They’re dying, no questions asked.
>Wrong. They're called constitutionally protected rights, not constitutionally granted rights.
In the constitution in the abstract, yes. But in reality, these rights are secured by the state to protect them, not you.
>My rights are secured by my own actions to defend them.
Oh, so if you are disabled in a firefight and tyrone wins, I guess he has the right to your property because you lost the battle. But of course, you would never accept that, if you lost a gunfight, you would contact the police to hunt him down.
And don't go into this cowboy lone wanderer larp now where you "wouldnt call the police" and turn into some private eye out to find out where tyrone lives
Just say you want to suck nigger dicks 24/7 and get this thread over with already.
Is this what cucks really think gun ownership and defensive use against property crime is like in real life?
>if you lost a gunfight, you would contact the police to hunt him down.
No, you'd be dead.
Tyrone knows not to leave any witnesses.
Your imposing military standards on random civilians likewise a suspended threat could very likely end up being shot at regardless of if it was 100% confirmed or not for example a kid running to a soldier with a gun or grenade with the intention of giving it to him. Obvious any soldier would drop the kid regardless of intention unless clearly obvious.
It's called castle doctrine sweetheart. If a fucker is in my home and I ask them to leave and they refuse, they are trespassing and can be fired upon. Now this individual is stealing my TV on top of not leaving? Well my friend, I'm emptying the fucking magazine.
>memefag says memefag shit
Just being there is threatening your life.
And europe is a shitskin shithole now...
It isnt a split second decision, stop larping.But once again with gun retards, you've reframed this as a shootoff. Read the OP again, I am saying it requires judgement, assessing the risk and taking appropriate action. Just come out and admit you want to be clint eastwood
No, I don't want him there and the cops won't do shit unless they hear gunfire. It's his own damn fault, and that's exactly what satan will tell him while his ass is getting raped in hell.
But you do, you're just saying that you shouldn't. It's probably because you're retarded.
Maybe in your fascist Lala land, but in the United States the law is clear: people are endowed with rights. They have them, whether it bunches your panties or not.
You're wasting time with an underage that is sending the link from this thread to his friends on the XBOX to show how he's a smart troll.
Just admit you're a larping faggot with the memeflag on