First, I would like to draw from our topic: "Should one be allowed by law to use any force thought necessary if someone breaks into his/her home" if we draw directly from this then we must allow nuclear defense of your home, so your claiming that we should allow all people in the United States to obtain and then use nuclear weapons. I instead throughout this debate will claim :"One should be allowed by law to use any reasonable force thought necessary if someone breaks into his/her home".
I would like to point out that I am not insinuating that people should use 'nuclear forces' if/when their house is being invaded but just have the security that they can take force.'The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.' when i say the words 'force' why do automatically think of nuclear forces?? this force could vary to anything as innocent as pepper spray. When you say reasonable force, where will the line be drawn in the sand under this case. If you do have a burglary and you are faced dead eyed with the intruders. While your loved ones are in the other room your first reflex is to protect them in anyway you see fit and i believe it is about time that the law should protect these innocent human beings from these unavoidable experiences.
You cannot claim that there is an underlying principle if you do not state it. Your topic clearly states "any force" so to say anyone can use any force is ridiculous. Nuclear force is A FORCE, thus it can be covered by "any force". I agree people must be protected but with reasonable force not ANY FORCE.