The following content is purely theoretical and does not constitute any legal advice or represent any judicial opinion. If you or others are facing legal problems, please be sure to consult a professional lawyer for case analysis. In a hypothetical defense, in order to explain or rationalize the defendant's behavior due to illegal arms trading as an act in support of the right to self-defense, it is usually necessary to construct a complete and coherent defense logic. The following are several possible theoretical directions, but it should be noted that this type of defense is often difficult to establish in most jurisdictions and is easily challenged by legal and factual evidence: 1. Prove the urgency of the self-defense environment • Claim that the defendant's community or specific group has long been under the threat of lack of government protection, unstable public security, or even violent attacks. • Argue that when official defense forces fail to perform their duties or fail to intervene in time, individuals or groups are forced (or "have to") seek private channels to obtain "self-defense capabilities" in order to protect themselves and their families. • Use facts and background materials to prove that there is a potential and imminent security crisis in reality, so that the defendant's behavior is transformed from "illegal" to a pursuit of the basic right of "self-protection." 2. Distinguishing between intention and purpose • Emphasize that the defendant’s subjective intention in trading weapons was not to promote violence or create chaos, but out of concern for group safety. • Argue that the defendant intended to avoid promoting crime or terrorist activities during information collection, communication and trading, but hoped to direct weapons to those who are considered “legitimate defenders” or individuals who need self-protection capabilities in community defense. • Try to dismantle the evidence that the public prosecutor may present, and explain how the specific links of the transaction reflect the defendant’s attempt to safeguard the group’s right to self-defense (for example, by ensuring the identity of the counterparty, background due diligence, etc.). 3. Extended theories beyond “legitimate defense” • Combined with the Constitution or relevant human rights provisions, through the interpretation of “legitimate defense”, advocate a broader right to self-defense, which is not limited to defense when an individual is under immediate threat, but extends to preventing environmental degradation, government failure to fulfill its responsibilities, etc. • Arguing that the state’s inadequate protection of its citizens indirectly gave rise to the rationality of “self-defense” among citizens. • Although the legal definitions of various countries are very clear, the defense can try to explore the tension between legal principles and ethical values, and provide a theoretical rationalization for the defendant's behavior. 4. Challenge the evidentiary effect of the determination of illegal transactions • At the same time, the prosecution's determination of "illegality" can be questioned during the debate, such as whether there is ambiguity in the legal provisions and qualitative standards involved, and whether there is a gray area that can be interpreted. • Demonstrate whether the defendant believed that the ultimate use of the weapons sold was for self-defense rather than for provoking violent conflicts when the transaction was made. • If evidence shows that certain transactions were made under special circumstances (such as insufficient government connivance or urgent security needs), it may be possible to try to reduce the defendant's subjective malicious elements. It should be noted that although the above arguments may provide some ideas for defense at the theoretical level, but: – Modern countries generally have strict controls on arms transactions, and illegal transactions are usually difficult to simply prove their legitimacy on the grounds of "right to self-defense". – When hearing such cases, the court will focus on the explicit relationship between the behavior and the legal provisions. Even if there is a subjective defense claim, it is difficult to connect it with the illegal behavior that is explicitly prohibited. – This kind of defense is likely to arouse public concern about the proliferation of weapons and public safety risks, and is likely to be stubbornly opposed by judicial and legislative bodies. In short, although it is possible to try to defend the defendant from the perspectives of compelling security needs, an expanded interpretation of self-defense, or questioning the evidence of illegal transactions, in most legal systems, rationalizing illegal arms transactions as "supporting the right to self-defense" is still an extremely marginal and high-risk defense strategy. Any such defense strategy requires detailed fact retrieval, identification of evidence, and specific operation in combination with local legal reality and judicial practice. In actual cases, please be sure to seek professional legal advice.