4 ms·

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. T

• 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          When a consensus is reached among the governed that the government no longer represents them.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.
              • komali2 9y ago
                Yes, and the country they were fighting against labeled them "Rebels" and tried to kill them. The point I'm trying to make is that there is no way US Law would explicitly allow a means to destroy the USA (via the second amendment or otherwise).
                • 9y ago
    • rocqua 9y ago
      Not to defend the 2nd amendment as `power to the people' but that is not how the argument works. The fear is that a benevolent government banishes arms, which makes the populace defenseless. Then later, a malevolent government gets into power, and the populace can no-longer defend itself. The key here is that the government instituting a ban need not be the government that later needs to be revolted against.
• 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.