You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] xobodox 0 points 54 points (+54|-0) ago 

We have unalienable rights. If the govt doesn't protect us, we have the right to sue it. If we protect ourselves, the govt has no rights.


[–] Tallest_Skil 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

Enjoy prison, dipshit. You will never fight back.


[–] mrfetus 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Fuck off kike.


[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 27 points -8 points (+19|-27) ago 

The use of deadly force is not an inalienable right, it's an exemption to prosecution after committing an act of manslaughter. It has narrowly defined criteria justifying its use.

The parent poster is hoping that the people armed with deadly weapons will understand under what circumstances they're permitted to shoot someone. And the implication is that people illegally crossing a border isn't sufficient grounds to do so. They probably only have the legal right to attempt to detain them, but that's the question: can they threaten or use deadly force to prevent the commission of a crime, even when it doesn't result in an immediate threat of bodily harm?


[–] DeadFox 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

How does a community not have the right to defend themselves from a literal invasion such as this?


[–] YugeDick 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

people illegally crossing a border isn't sufficient grounds

If I illegally cross the threshold of your home, you have every legal right to shoot me dead. It's defense of private property.

I see no difference here.


[–] stradian 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

Here is the legal justification:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Here is the prescedent:

The government has failed in its reason for existance. The People are now going to secure what the government should have.


[–] NoisyCricket 3 points 9 points (+12|-3) ago 

The use of deadly force is not an inalienable right,

This is as factually incorrect as can be. That's literally exactly what the Second Amendment allows for. Deadly force IS an inalienable human right. The question isn't if it's a right, but if use of the right is justified. Which is a different question and a different statement.