Comment: Force, in self defense, is

(See in situ)


Force, in self defense, is

Force, in self defense, is justified.

I have a shotgun in the off chance someone breaks into my house.

I find it interesting that I should be classified in the same category as murderers for my dissent on the legitimacy of the Constitution.

You said:
I would arrest your ass at gun point, just as I would, at gun point, stop you from... stealing.

You would stop me at gunpoint to prevent me from stealing, and you would be justified in doing so. Here, we agree.

However, you would also kidnap me at gunpoint if I did not consent to federal agents stealing from me?

So what you are telling me is that if it says on a piece of paper that it is ok to steal, that is fine and dandy?

Majorities can steal from the individual and justify it with this thing called a social document, right?

But if an individual steals, and does not create some sort of documentation justifying it, then he is criminal?

So stealing is ok if documented and called taxation?

I thought taking what one person earns by force was wrong?

Can you help me sift through this apparent contradiction?

Do I get to keep what I earn or not?