Self Defense and the Sixth Commandment
The Westminster Larger Catechism's treatment of the sixth commandment is as follows:
Question 135: What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.
Question 136: What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge;all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and: Whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
It should be clear, then, that the man has the duty to defend himself and others from harm. Loving your neighbor means defending him from criminals. Pretty simple, if you ask me. If someone is taking my property, they can have it. If they are attacking myself or someone else, my duty is to respond. If I am attacked in my home, the bad guy will eat 00 buckshot.
Toward this end, I consider it the duty of men to own and be able to operate firearms. I mentioned in one of my coments that the necessary firearms for self-defense involve a shotgun and a reliable pistol. Most shotgun instructors are partial to the Remington 870 with the 18.5" barrel for primary home defense:
It's featured here with an added sidesaddle for extra shells (necessary), a shortened Wilson combat stock (highly necessary, standard shotgun stocks are too long), a Sure-fire tactical fore-end (necessary), ghost-ring sights (a waste of money), and a sling (necessary only if you run out of shells during the gunfight, in which case you'll be dead). My gun is not in this configuration yet. I still need the tactical fore-end ($300) and the sling.
Owning a handgun is also a very good idea. You can't go wrong with a Glock, but I own a more powerful 1911 model Kimber Custom II, chambered in .45 ACP. The term '1911' means that the pistol was based on the Colt 1911 semiautomatic pistol. Nearly 100 years later, we still don't have anything more reliable. Kimber makes an excellent model (right).
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, you need training in the use of your weapons. Since the shotgun will serve as your primary, learn that first. I've had instruction from a school near my house (www.wct.4t.com/index1.htm). The instructor is very good, and teaches a certain method of holding the shotgun that manages recoil very effectively. This is important both for your shoulder and for staying on target for follow-on shots. I've also taken a concealed-carry class for the pistol, not because I'll be able to get one in this county, but because it teaches you how to handle a gun safely.
I hope this helps. I'm by no means a firearms expert, nor am I particularly into guns. But there's a lot of bad information out there on internet gun fora and websites, and this is what's been handed down to me by the experts.
PRCalDude
8 Comments
1 Reference
References (1)
-
Response: Klubonit 16 postall about Klubonit and top news
Reader Comments (8)
PRC,
Thanks for posting a topic about this... I agree with what you've written above. I have been researching into taking a concealed-carry class. I didn't however think about the necessity of an additional gun, such a shotgun. Anyway, you can't carry in your county???
Hey something we totally agree on. I like the shotgun, I have a Remmington Home defender, it's nice. Also carry concelled, don't know if you can do that in Cali, i doubt it. Have a t-38, t-24/7 40cal (2005 NRA Handgun of the year) just ordered a Ketco 380 to carry. I think thats the name of it. Order it for a guy how has a shop and he opened it when he got done with 2 tours with a private security group in Iraq. It this not nice or what, we agree 100 percent on something. I feel a bond growing here!
What's up Kara26?
I agree with you. I do not have the Remington Home Defender yet. We agree that the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. We agree that personal gun ownership is needed today. :-)
I do not know how long we will still have this constitutional right to carry firearms in USA.
The American Left has almost convinced key U.S. Senators to ignore the Constitution to grant law-breakers USA citizenship. Most of these law-breakers ("illegal aliens") come from countries which prohibit citizen gun ownership. The far majority of illegal aliens (remember: future Ted Kennedy Democrat voters)lack the cultural, historical, or constitutional heritage to firm up or encourage commitment to 2nd Amendment and gun ownership. The vast majority of illegal aliens have no knowledge or basic concept of the necessity of the Bill of Rights.
I remember one conversation, where my friend said, "I do not think guns should be legal in America. I do not feel safe in America. In my country we do not have guns." I replied, "you and my feelings on this matter or any other matter or issue is irrelevant and not the point. What is relevant is what the Constitution says."
I fear the 2nd Amendment may be gone in a few years.
I was talking to a fireman,and he explained in the state of Illinois, that the 2nd Amendment has been steadily eroded over the years. For example, if a burgler breaks into one's house, the owner of the house has to prove to a jury that her life was in "mortal jeopardy---loss of life" before using a firearm for protection. This proof does not simply mean that the burgler must break down several locked doors. No, it goes much further than that. It means that the houseowner must have clear evidence to show to a jury that the burgler intended to kill her, instead of just intending to steal.
The 2nd Amendment may be gone in a few years...
Nice!
aren't the U.S. courts operating under admiralty law? I don't think our constitution matters anymore... they've already written a new states replacement version
I don't think they're operating under anything but precedent, which is determined by the liberalness or conservativeness of the judges who set it. I'd agree that we don't have much in the way of a contract with our government anymore. Property values and business climate will soon begin to reflect that, IMO.
If one buys a firearm for protection one must also learn how to use it correctly. There is no point shooting someone for protection if you do not shoot to kill and do not know how to shoot to kill. If someone does invade your property and you shoot them, you are better off killing them so they can not lie about you in court in their defense.
The problem with many people in America right now is they are not capable, do not have the inherent ability trained into them, to actually kill someone.
If you are carrying a lethal weapon, and you have no intention of using it in a lethal capacity, then what's the point?
Hello PRCalDude. While I am not a follower of any religious faith I do respect yours and I sympathize with you: it must be difficult for you, both as a man of faith and as a man of the US Constitution, living in California of all places.
Though I am not a religious man I was raised Catholic and I have to say that I was happy to read your interpretation of the Sixth Commandment. From what I can tell, even most of the Christian citizens of the United States have become pick-and-choose followers of both the Bible and the Bill of Rights: for lack of a better way of saying it, they speak out of one side of their mouth when it comes to playing lip service to their so-called faith and out of the other side of their mouth when it comes to playing a similar lip service to the politically correct, super-liberal, everything-goes types who have all but taken over this once-fair country.
I was glad to read your post about gun-ownership oriented home defense. I also own an 870, although mine is customized somewhat differently (in that mine has front and back pistol grips and a folding stock). I also have a .38s revolver - not that I don't want as semi-auto; just that for the time being I needed the most reliable gun I could buy for a limited amount of money. For what it's worth, I highly approve of your comments above.
I do have to disagree with you regarding the complete erosion of 2nd Amendment rights in this country. It's gone a long way - way too far, in my humble opinion - but as history has proven time and again I am hopeful that core Americans will (eventually) draw a line in the sand and buck once it's crossed. Living in California I can imagine how it must look: it seems the only people allowed to carry anything bigger than a BB gun are the illegal immigrants and their gang-affiliated descendants. But I promise you, outside South Central L.A. there are many, many men and women who believe in the Bill of Rights and will always, no matter what the cost, use their guns to make sure it doesn't go away.
Even here in Gainesville, Fl - one of the liberal capitals of the world - I get my reassurance by visiting one of the half-dozen local gun shops and seeing their parking lots full.
Keep the faith and keep your guns,
Sincerely,
Richard