Does his use of that advantage render the action of self-defense unjustifiable? If it resulted in the loss of the aggressor's life, does it become murder? Would someone not want the most modern and capable defensive tool available if those that would harm him have this tool available to them as well? Would he risk life and limb of himself and those loves in order to stay in the confines of the law but put himself at a potential disadvantage to his adversaries, or would he rather risk his own freedom and break the law to save what matters most to him? What if those that wrote these laws are the aforementioned aggressors? When do logic, human instinct, and basic human rights supercede the law?

Castle doctrine, nigga, do you speak it?

Yes.

Does a man have the right to defend his lolis if the government tries to take them away?