[gfo]

Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?

Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore? The same people who are large proponents of the 2nd Amendment also seem to encourage a massive defense budget which seems backwards to me.

[goostavos]

>Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?

Well, yeah.

There are no illusions that a group of people with dubious levels of training could square off against the government and come out on top. However, you can certainly raise the cost of occupation _significantly_.

Despite the US rolling into the middle east with all of its technological might, planes, helicopters, and modern armor, its still bands of people with guns and bombs who, years after "mission accomplished", drag the conflict onward.

[Jach]

People seem pretty ignorant of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[stickdogg]

Who is the threat to invade the United States? Last time I checked, Canada and Mexico are pretty peaceful Nations and Russia is in charge of our current president.

[lliamander]

> Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?

The loss of property, and the violation of one's home and sense of security are real harms. But the point is not to make the violator pay, so much as it is to merely prevent an injustice.

And many (I believe most) defensive gun uses involve merely brandishing the weapon. Most people do not relish the thought of taking another's life.

> Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore? The same people who are large proponents of the 2nd Amendment also seem to encourage a massive defense budget which seems backwards to me.

It makes more sense when you realize that there is significant overlap between "gun owners" and "past or present military service".

[stickdogg]

If u intend to "brandish" a gun and you are not prepared to use it. Then you are the person who needs to be afraid for their life .

[lliamander]

As I agree with your statement, I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. One can be under threat, prepared to use a weapon, brandish it, and yet not actually use it. Discipline and restraint are import aspects of firearm training.

[deadmetheny]

>Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?

I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be. I'm not going to wait and find out if you would attempt to kill me as a result of discovering you are burglarizing my home.

>Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?

Nobody is under any illusions that the US military could roll through with tanks and cluster bombs and annihilate any opposition, but I doubt the government is particularly keen on ruling over a pile of ruined infrastructure. If that's the case, they instead have to deal with a large population of armed guerillas, which the Mid-East conflicts have proven the US is rather poor at dealing with. To say nothing of the fact that a large portion of the US military would defect upon being told to fire upon the people they've signed up to defend. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to deter the government from using overt force.

[SahAssar]

To jump from

> I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be.

to shooting someone would in most countries be considered a illogical and reckless act.

I'm having a hard time thinking of any scenario where taking someones life is a justified, logical and logically judicial act. Especially in the case you said.

[pathseeker]

>I'm having a hard time thinking of any scenario where taking someones life is a justified, logical and logically judicial act. Especially in the case you said.

Someone breaks into your house with a knife with the intent to cut your throat and steal anything that can be sold quickly.

People have been murdered by burglars many times so you can't bury your head in the sand and pretend that's not an outcome.

In your ideal world, do you prefer that the victims allow the burglar to eliminate them as a witness?

[SahAssar]

> Someone breaks into your house with a knife with the intent to cut your throat and steal anything that can be sold quickly.

That is assuming a lot of thinking from a scenario that started as:

> I don't know who you are, why you are in my home, and what your intentions may be.

Even assuming what you said, the right to take a life is not a right a citizen should ever have, in any situation.

[reitanqild]

> ... the right to take a life is not a right a citizen should ever have, in any situation.

The right to kill in self defense exists in many countries but I belive in most countries it will result in an investigation and you'll probably have to go to court to convince a judge that you had

1. Reason to fear for your or someone elses life

2. considered (and if possible: tried) other reasonable options.

I think it would be extremely cruel to punish someone for defending themselves or someone else.

Also keep in mind that stopping an attacker without the option of hurting them seriously is way harder than if you are allowed to use any means.

[SmirkingRevenge]

Committing a home invasion, whether to steal, to harm, or something else, is a dangerous, immoral, illogical and reckless act. Lethal force is a justified response, period.

[SahAssar]

Proportional response is a thing, and the state having a monopoly on deadly force is a good thing IMO.

Using deadly force to counter a purely material crime is madness.

[SmirkingRevenge]

Deadly force IS a proportional response to a home invasion - in both the moral and legal sense.

Its not the victim's obligation to quiz the home invader on their intentions before they act to protect themselves, their family and/or their property. A person knowingly and foreseeably puts their own life up for forfeit by invading another's home... and for what - a material crime, as you say? (But I hope we all acknowledge that the stakes are often far more serious and irrevocable than having your ipad stolen while you sleep).

The big open secret here is, no government today or in the past has had a monopoly on deadly force (nor will they ever). They only have a monopoly on punishing deadly force via the judicial system.

Deadly force can be legally prohibited and morally justified. It can be legally justified and morally abhorrent.

[mmirate]

Because you have no way of knowing, beforehand, an intruder's exact intentions.

[pathseeker]

> Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?

Why would a guy who grabs a cop's gun and waves it around pointing it at people for a thrill have to pay with the actions of their life when another cop shoots them?

>Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?

Do you really think gun owners would line up on the field to take on the military in the open? Ruling over a country where half of the people are supporters and the other half are armed dissidents would be impossible regardless of military strength. Just look at the failures of the last Iraq war to see how a tiny fraction of the population was able to throw off the whole thing.

[rtx]

>Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?

They have the option of wearing a bullet proof vest or use trained monkeys to do their bidding.

[white-flame]

> Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?

Note that the US military is sworn to the constitution, not to any current administration. When anti-citizen measures are proposed, the military aligns with the citizens.

[GiorgioG]

Because a man's home is his castle.

> Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore?

Nope, some of us citizens believe that the US military ranks will by and large not obey unlawful/unconstitutional orders to attack its own citizenry on our soil. If they choose to do so anyway - good luck, there's more of us than there are of them.

[Falling3]

>Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life?

They shouldn't. But what guarantee does someone have that the intruder won't harm them?