Is there a prudential need, in these times, for those with responsibility for souls to own firearms? August 18, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society.
An interesting post from Bearing Arms, arguing that, given the ongoing societal decay, increasingly violent riots, and a racial supremacist movement among certain minorities, there may well be something near to a moral imperative to own firearms, at least (or especially) among those with responsibility for the safety of souls other than their own. If such responsibility were to extend to one’s neighbors, however, it could be argued that almost all souls should at least seriously consider not only owning firearms, but firearms suitable to defend against throngs of people in a riot-type environment (that would be, semi-auto rifles with large capacity magazines).
I am not wholly on board with this assessment as a recommendation, but I do think it quite worthy of consideration, even if it seems to contradict so much of the pacifist rhetoric that abounds in certain quarters of the Church today (my emphasis and comments):
……One of the terrifying realities of an interconnected digital age is that radicals can easily and quickly organize flash riots. They can descend on an area with little or no warning in large numbers, commit significant felony acts in a short amount of time, and then disappear before law enforcement can mount a significant response.
This new reality leaves citizens in a position where virtually any urban or suburban neighborhood community can find itself turned into a flashpoint for a riot within hours [minutes, really], before local authorities have the opportunity to recognize an escalating threat, much less mobilize, equip, and deploy their forces in effective numbers.
Now more than ever, you may find yourself and your neighbors forced to band together and defend your homes, businesses, and lives, just as Korean shopkeepers famously did in the 1992 Los Angeles riots, and residents, storekeepers, and Oathkeepers did in Ferguson in 2014.
It probably won’t come as a surprise to anyone that the firearms best suited for keeping these violent mobs at bay are the very firearms that anti-gun Democrats are so fervently attempting to ban.
An AR-15…….is among the most effective possible firearms against murderous, arson-minded rioters in suburban and urban situations………
……The same general rules of engagement apply during riot as they would at any other time. You may not use deadly force upon another human being unless they pose an imminent deadly force threat to you or a third-party.
That noted, the willingness of these rioters to use deadly force is unquestioned. They have fired shots at police and citizens, and they have shown that they are willing to torch buildings with little or no thought to the lives inside those structures.
This creates a plausible scenario where a citizen sees rioters about to put lives at risk up to several block away, justifying a much-longer-than-normal third-party self defense shot of dozens to hundreds of yards.
If you do not yet own a quality AR-15 (or similar rifle) with good low-powered scopes or a red dot optic, a decent weapon-mounted light, other required accouterments and the training to use these carbines for the defense of your family and community, you may want to consider if you’re making a mistake.
Increasingly, it may be the responsibility of armed citizens to save their communities from violent mobs when law enforcement cannot mobilize fast enough to prevent attacks that are nothing more or less than domestic terrorism.
And indeed, this kind of anarchy is entirely predictable in a society that has cut itself loose from the mooring of religion and turned its back on God. God allows our sins to become our punishments in many cases, and the rejection of religion, the better to permit certain kinds of immorality to become “acceptable,” can and will cause painful blowback in ways the originators of the societal religious divorce perhaps never intended (but then again, maybe they did).
Those doing the most to wreck the culture generally have the wealth and power to escape almost all the dread effects of their anti-Christian jihad. But for those of us without such assets at our disposal, we must accept the reality as it presents itself and deal with it accordingly. Given the overall cultural trends, we can expect this kind of anarchy to only grow worse.
The Catholic Church has always taught that souls have the right to defend themselves, and, even more, innocents around them, even up to the use of deadly force. Acquiring the means to do so is not only morally permissible, it may be not only prudent, but could even become an imperative depending on one’s individual circumstances. If you live in a sparsely populated rural area, the likelihood of a flash mob bent on destruction is quite low. But if you live where I do, in a densely populated, decaying area with large numbers of aggrieved (whether that grievance has any basis in reality or not is immaterial) and idle people, especially young people……well, things are quite different.
At any rate, it’s certainly something that bears consideration. In general, Catholics are much better off as martyrs than as fighters, but dying in a senseless act of random violence is hardly a martyrdom.
And really, since I’m in total self-justification mode, ought not the above be sufficient to justify crew-served weapons like heavy machine guns and mortars? Think I could press my 12 year old daughters into mortar bearers? Oh, I think 60 mm quite sufficient. 120 mm, now that would be crazy.
How about a recoiless rifle?