5 ms·

God im so angry on how they basically evicted the old man and his wife. I might be finally able to contemplate why having a gun as final defense against such l

God im so angry on how they basically evicted the old man and his wife. I might be finally able to contemplate why having a gun as final defense against such lawfull robberys is a good option. This type of behaviour can happen at insolvencys in germany too. If you get a corrupt insolvency-manager, he will ride the remains of your company (even if it could be saved) into countless law battles with creditors - where the insolvency managers firm is the defending party of the company its managing. This can go on until the company-corpse is sucked dry.

0xfeba 9y ago
I have to admit, the daughter murdering Parks and the judge seemed more and more possible as the article went on with the government seemingly fully in on it. That would definitely send a message. It must be terrifying to feel so helpless against the state.
- busterarm 9y ago
  Absolutely 100% justifiable homicide.
- gertef 9y ago
  Defense of self and family is not murder.
  - komali2 9y ago
    It is when you kill the members of the ruling body. This is why "2nd amendment protects you from the government" arguments are absurd. Attacking the government is illegal - if you find a legal way to do it, the government will protect itself from bodily harm by declaring whatever you did illegal. EDIT: This is not an argument of moral right versus wrong, this is about the definition of "illegal," which only has function as a concept if there's an actual government. For example, we can all agree that shooting unarmed civilians is wrong, right? Or taking their cash money? But, it's not illegal. Cops do it all the time, and in the case of cash money it's explicitly legal. I would love to be challenged on this point, so I would greatly appreciate if you could spice your downvotes with a quick thought on why I'm wrong.
    - deadmetheny 9y ago
      The 2nd Amendment allows citizenry to be armed in case it becomes necessary to overthrow a corrupt government that no longer serves the needs of the people, the government is no longer legitimate if that threshold is broken and what it determines is illegal doesn't matter anymore. Killing in retribution when the law fails isn't really a 2nd Amendment usage case, though.
      - komali2 9y ago
        >When the law fails When would the government admit that the law has failed? >Overthrown a corrupt government When would the government admit it is corrupt? When would it "allow" itself to be violently deposed?
        RUG3Y 9y ago
        When a consensus is reached among the governed that the government no longer represents them. Admission on the part of the government is not expected or necessary.
        komali2 9y ago
        So, wouldn't that by definition be war? If the governed reach that consensus, I expect the government would just declare them "terrorists," and their actions "illegal."
        0xfeba 9y ago
        Yes, It would be a civil war. And that's exactly what governments today do. Turkey, Sudan, Bosnia, etc.
        RUG3Y 9y ago
        Do you remember something called the "Revolutionary War"? It was an event in history that happened when the people who wrote the 2nd amendment fought the British government for control of the country.
- noonespecial 9y ago
  I'm hesitant to point it out too often or too loudly, but if 4chan ever really got the notion they could very likely permanently financially murder someone like Parks through identity theft on an unprecedented scale. But oh the anarchy once that power was known.

0xfeba 9y ago

I have to admit, the daughter murdering Parks and the judge seemed more and more possible as the article went on with the government seemingly fully in on it. That would definitely send a message. It must be terrifying to feel so helpless against the state.

busterarm 9y ago
Absolutely 100% justifiable homicide.
gertef 9y ago
Defense of self and family is not murder.
- komali2 9y ago
  It is when you kill the members of the ruling body. This is why "2nd amendment protects you from the government" arguments are absurd. Attacking the government is illegal - if you find a legal way to do it, the government will protect itself from bodily harm by declaring whatever you did illegal. EDIT: This is not an argument of moral right versus wrong, this is about the definition of "illegal," which only has function as a concept if there's an actual government. For example, we can all agree that shooting unarmed civilians is wrong, right? Or taking their cash money? But, it's not illegal. Cops do it all the time, and in the case of cash money it's explicitly legal. I would love to be challenged on this point, so I would greatly appreciate if you could spice your downvotes with a quick thought on why I'm wrong.
  - deadmetheny 9y ago
    The 2nd Amendment allows citizenry to be armed in case it becomes necessary to overthrow a corrupt government that no longer serves the needs of the people, the government is no longer legitimate if that threshold is broken and what it determines is illegal doesn't matter anymore. Killing in retribution when the law fails isn't really a 2nd Amendment usage case, though.
    - komali2 9y ago
      >When the law fails When would the government admit that the law has failed? >Overthrown a corrupt government When would the government admit it is corrupt? When would it "allow" itself to be violently deposed?
      - RUG3Y 9y ago
        When a consensus is reached among the governed that the government no longer represents them. Admission on the part of the government is not expected or necessary.
        komali2 9y ago
        So, wouldn't that by definition be war? If the governed reach that consensus, I expect the government would just declare them "terrorists," and their actions "illegal."
        0xfeba 9y ago
        Yes, It would be a civil war. And that's exactly what governments today do. Turkey, Sudan, Bosnia, etc.
        RUG3Y 9y ago
        Do you remember something called the "Revolutionary War"? It was an event in history that happened when the people who wrote the 2nd amendment fought the British government for control of the country.
noonespecial 9y ago
I'm hesitant to point it out too often or too loudly, but if 4chan ever really got the notion they could very likely permanently financially murder someone like Parks through identity theft on an unprecedented scale. But oh the anarchy once that power was known.