He then asked if I was willing to shoot someone over my xbox.
I told him, "The xbox was besides the point. We are talking about a person intruding into my house at night with my family present. Hell yes, I'd shoot him. It's the principle of the thing. I'd shoot a hole in my xbox without blinking to do it."
In descending order of importance of ethical justification of self defense:
Endangering of family. <----- Your primary concern.
Endangering of life.
Invasion of home.
Loss of property. <---- The leftist is functioning mentally on this level.
Trespassing. <----- The level at which you are legally allowed to end a motherfucker.
If someone breaks in while you are there, you MUST assume they will attempt to do you harm. A smart(for a given value of smart) criminal cases the place, if they just want your stuff they will break in while you are away, it is when they have plans for YOU that they break in while you are present. A DUMB criminal, even if they just want your things, is very likely to become violent when they find that they are not alone. Edit: also, i would reverse the family vs you, while you may value your family more than yourself(many do), a dead person saves no one.
If you have never been in a fight in your life it's very easy to think that mutual escalation is always the way to go. "oh, I'll just wait until he uses lethal force, then I can respond"
its always people hoping they won't have to hurt someone, but that is a dumb way to handle someone presenting an imminent threat. Your concerns should be, Primary: Your safety(a dead person helps no one), Secondary: Your loved ones and any nearby innocents, Tertiary: Your things and possibility of over penetration or misses, the safety of the threat should not even be a factor
The person making a decision to break into another's home for a material possession has already set the price on the value of their life.
We are dealing with the lowest of the low in terms of mental capability. They are in fact criminals so profoundly stupid and unaware of their criminal options that they are too stupid to realize that renting an XBox from a Rent a Center and never making future payments is far less likely to earn them a bullet in the chest. They clearly have no understanding of risk-reward and end up dead within arms reach of an Xbox controller.
That’s why women voting fucked up the system. You can lie your whole 50year political life and end up as POTUS if you just give an appeal to emotions speech.
And it’s not just women, but any category which runs on emotions.
This is the basis of Castle Doctrine. Even cucked California grants that assumption in their Castle Doctrine law.
A Coup, stealing of an election. <----- The level that adds to the "long train of abuses and usurpations"
Apparently that’s not the point at which YOU would dare to do something since you’d rather post on the internet.
It’s easy to call for blood if you expect others to spill it.
I'm saying that prudence is good, but that as the train of abuses and usurpations gets longer it will get to the point when doing the right thing to establish an institution that better secures rights becomes a necessity.
"Stealing the country" should be WAY past that point.
Sure, just we should keep track of how long the train of abuses and usurpations is getting.
Depends on the state. I believe Texas has an allowance for "defense of mere property" while other states may not.
But you're right, the primary goal is protecting yourself and your family, and the lefties have no idea what the fuck that is like - because it requires ethics and moral fiber.
Duty to retreat has never survived a Supreme court challenge. Mostly because those pussies have never had the balls to say that if someone crushes a blade of grass on your property without your permission they made their choice.
Excellent breakdown