It's too bad they don't have the Castle Doctrine. Many States do. It allows homeowners, under the condition of trespassing while being warned not to, to defend their private property if the homeowner believe the trespassers are a threat to the safety of themselves, their families, their neighbors and/or their private property. There are some stipulations though, like you have to give the trespassers notice in order to vacate before you apply lethal self-defense, and only if they refuse to leave upon warning and notice.

>>22091
Also, self defense is equal force. Meaning you can't shoot a knife or bat wielding piece of shit. That's ok though. I have thick high fences on either side of my back yard and a shovel. Nobody needs to know.

>>22092
Since when did the law specifically state you can't shoot a knife wielding attacker for self defense!?

If that's true and you can prove it, I guess it's time to change strategy, maybe if I ever get attacked I should burn the body out in the back of the woods and cover the ashes with dirt? That's pretty fucked if your forced to do that just to stay out of jail because you fucking defended yourself and/or family. This country is seriously going to hell if true.

>>22097
Hmmmm, I guess it is up to the interpretation of the courts, depending which State you live in. The model penal code 3.04 is very broad (it does not seem to limit what kinds of weaponry can be used for self-defense during what kinds of attacks, for example). What I believe Texas law may mean by an excessive use of force would be unloading a whole clip into someone who was already taken to the ground from just one gunshot. Basically if you don't have to kill the attacker to stop them best to just disable them and call the police ASAP. Basically don't do a drive-by style shooting just to defend yourself from one attacker. I could be wrong, it probably just depends what kind of judge you are dealing with and within what State or local jurisdiction. If you live in a "blue" State or jurisdiction you would really have to worry IMO.

>>22099
These law making idiots don't get it. The primal response of self defense is excessive force. Police do it all the time, yet nobody crying about that understands something as simple as human nature. Bloodlust. A natural panic response when facing imminent death (as is typical of cops). Who's not going to snap in that situation? We are animals. The beast lurks beneath the surface of everyone. Death comes to those who refuse their primal nature when it's of utmost necessity.

>>22100
I would say if we were living 40 to 50 years ago this would not even be an issue, self-defense is self-defense period and 99.9% of the courts would agree.

Unfortunately we now live in a communist country and many courts have been corrupted and many replaced with radical leftists. So in no way are we absolutely guaranteed our 2nd Amendment right by every court. Therefore I would suggest fences around your private property, re-enforcing your doorjambs with deadbolts and long thick strike plates to secure the deadbolts (with 3" steel screws through the doorjamb) and the same re-enforcement for the hinges on the other side. That way, if you ever did have to defend yourself, there would be very clear evidence of B&E and before the criminal would be able to break in it would have alerted the neighbors due to the loud brazen attempts to break into your home. After all, if you have witnesses AND proof, then you can contact the NRA and GOA and get some financial backing to take your case to protect your right for lethal self-defense because it just became a major 2nd Amendment issue for the country. There are tons of organizations out there taking such cases and have records of success.

every day i get more and more convinced that anarchy is beneficial for humanity

>>22109
I was an Anarchist in my angry adolescence. Punk was trendy. As a teen with the logic center of my brain the least developed, I thought it would be a great ideal. I wanted to smash the system. The reality is, should total anarchy happen, authority rises in a vacuum. You can't enforce anarchy without becoming an authority figure. That's when you defeat the entire purpose.

So let us imagine the short period of time it could possibly happen until power seeking assholes take charge and form posses. Sure I've heard many anarchists make foolish claims like "natural morals will shine through". No they won't. People have innate desires they suppress in a law enforced society. Yet the punishment of prison is not very appealing. What man in an anarchist society would want natural courtship, going on dates and paying for meals and drawing out conversations, realizing ultimately she's going to transform into a nagging cunt? No consequences means the ability to pin any woman down and have your way with her. No strings attached. Sharing food and necessities? That's not anarchy. That's Socialism. With anarchy, you need something, you take it. You steal it. Someone pisses you off? No consequences. You kill them. Rape, murder and theft run rampant.

Everyone's darkest desires become reality. It's not sustainable. People will rise to authority or seek those who are willing to prevent that from happening to them. They then become, according to anarchist themselves, "totalitarian". "Fascist". According to the actual root definition of fascist: an organized group. Every anarchist's enemy. Yet massively organized groups are the only viable solution. Look at what happened here:

>>21926

THAT is what the government fears.

>>22110
I could not have said that any better myself. If the economy were to face hyperinflation and total collapse we would have anarchy for some time, followed by Martial Law under the Continuity of Government (planned in advance since the early 1950s during the Cold War). Look what happens to countries after an economic collapse: rampant riots, looting, murder, suicide, starvation, prostitution for basic goods, rape, acts of violence, etc. That's what I fear will inevitably happen to the US at some point when the US Dollar collapses.