Ayn Rand on Gun Control


syrakusos

Recommended Posts

If you aren't willing and capable of killing someone in self defense, your guns, if you have any, should be locked up in a safe.

--Brant

Totally agree. However, I thought we were discussing the "guilt thngy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 649
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 10 months later...

Huge 127 page decision by the 9th Crircuit which wipes out California's strict laws on consealed carry etc.

2-1 decisions on the way to SCOTUS. Should be the final beginning of the end for it,

The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said in the majority opinion.

Contoinuing:

California has long had some of the nation’s strongest restrictions on gun ownership, and, according to the court, is one of only eight states that allow local governments to deny concealed-weapons permits. The state formerly allowed residents to carry unloaded firearms in public, with ammunition in a separate container, but repealed that law at the start of 2013.

The ban on openly carrying guns made it impossible for most law-abiding citizens in counties like San Diego to “bear arms” for self-defense, O’Scannlain said in Thursday’s ruling. He said the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to “bear arms” must include the right to carry weapons outside the home.

The risk of armed confrontation “is not limited to the home,” O’Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of “a woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and from his job site.”

C.D. Michel, lawyer for the National Rifle and Pistol Foundation and individuals who challenged the San Diego County system, said sheriffs in many rural California counties already comply with the court’s standard by issuing gun permits to anyone who wants one for self-defense. But urban counties require evidence of a special need for a weapon, the requirement that the court invalidated, he said.

“The right to self-defense doesn’t end at your threshold,” Michel said. He said the ruling is “probably the biggest Second Amendment win” since the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling and a follow-up decision in 2010.

Coming from this Circuit this is a momentous decision, here is the link to the decision.

There is even a passage in the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that points out “the right to keep and bear arms” directly endorses carrying loaded and ready firearms around, because that is that is the meaning of the verb “bear.” That must be why the Second Amendment doesn’t protect “the right to store guns in your closet!”

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get the last quoted paragraph, Adam, for if the gun is in your closet that is where you "keep" it.

--Brant

SCOTUS should decline to hear

But not where you "bear" it.

As soon as I read the entire decision that may be what I hope happens also.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 0:33 is an example of what Rand called the Argument from Intimidation. As a counter to the suggestion that teachers should be armed, or armed guards should be in school, Boeheim's reaction is pure sarcasm without any rebuttal. This is the typical response--why?

In responding this way, people are basically saying that ANYONE with a gun is a threat. If a mad man comes into a school with a gun, the last thing you want is a teacher to have a gun. Who knows, the teacher may join in for Chrissake!

What else could they be implying by: Oh yeah, that's just what we need?

Don't even try to figure it out. It'll only drive you crazy because there's no reason to be found in the feminized liberal lunacy over firearms. The only gun control I support is hitting what you aim at.

t72.gif

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a straght forward Texas politician, might have even been Perry...gun control to us is having two (2) hands on the weapon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't even try to figure it out. It'll only drive you crazy because there's no reason to be found in the feminized liberal lunacy over firearms. The only gun control I support is hitting what you aim at.

t72.gif

Greg

Robert A. Heinlein once wrote: Never use a firearm when intoxicated. You might shoot at a tax collector ----- and miss!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't even try to figure it out. It'll only drive you crazy because there's no reason to be found in the feminized liberal lunacy over firearms. The only gun control I support is hitting what you aim at.

t72.gif

Greg

Robert A. Heinlein once wrote: Never use a firearm when intoxicated. You might shoot at a tax collector ----- and miss!

I hope Mr. Shotgun lives alone.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't even try to figure it out. It'll only drive you crazy because there's no reason to be found in the feminized liberal lunacy over firearms. The only gun control I support is hitting what you aim at.

t72.gif

Greg

Robert A. Heinlein once wrote: Never use a firearm when intoxicated. You might shoot at a tax collector ----- and miss!

I hope Mr. Shotgun lives alone.

--Brant

I wouldn't underestimate the numbers of Mrs. Shotguns. There's still a fair amount of rugged American pioneer women who don't get hysterical if they break a nail.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defensive force is not retaliatory force.

A burglar and a robber are two different things; a burglar burgles, a robber robs. A burglar who intends to be a burglar, but through his own incompetence and malice becomes a robber instead( ie., by exposing some innocent to his shit-for-brains choices in life), bears the responsibility for the resulting defensive actions of the innocent. The ethics of free vs forced association are clear as a bell in such circumstances; there is no ethical obligation for a robbery victim to give any benefit of any doubt as to what might be the true intentions of an incompetent burglar becoming an inadvertent robber. The initiator of the confrontation is clear. The avoidance of the conflict is trivial and not a burden to anyone. It becomes a burden by the actions of an incompetent burglar.

If I am confronted with an incompetent burglar inside of my home, I am not going to ask what his intentions were, or examine his upbringing or condition in life. I am instead going to rely on a tool designed to eliminate all possibility of threat to my family, by ending the aggression from the aggressor as effectively as possible, using a tool designed to kill, which will be my intent when aiming for center of mass using 230g .45c JHP hollow points. I will call 911. I will tell the police what happened, when they arrive in a half hour. I will help them fill out their reports. I will commiserate with the family of the perp, and regret along with them what defect in their lives brought them to this end. And I will remove the residue of the garbage from my home.

Outside of my home is an entirely different circumstance; the concept of direct threat to my family takes on an entirely different set of hurdles. We share the public commons. I've been carrying for over 20 years. Outside of my home in this period, I've used a weapon twice. Not the same weapon, and not the same circumstances. Once in public, and once in the context of my office in a private place of business. Both weapons were used and effective without firing. In both instances, no long lasting effect of any type of force or aggression from all involved.

In the public instance, it was a summer evening after a little league baseball game. My wife and sons and a group of their friends had gone to a strip mall ice cream shop. I was waiting alone, outside. Was late in day, but still light out. The strip mall was kind of quiet but the ice cream store was bustling inside with little leaguers and parents. This little 'buzzy' jap car with the noisy muffler and dark tinted windows comes speeding up, not into the parking spaces, but pulls up right in front of the ice cream store. Inside are a few thugged up looking teens, do rags. Driver stays in car, another jumps out, pulls do rag over his face, has zippered sweatshirt on hot night. Not looking good. I'm thinking, "Shit, these idiots are really going to do this in a shop full of kids and moms?" Driver is looking at me, I look at him, and open my shirt, like I'm hot, exposing my .45. Do rag is approaching me/door to ice cream shop, and I'm still holding my shirt open, look at the kid and said "It's a hot night, isn't it?" He says nothing, looks at the driver, turns around heads back to car, and they buzz off. Nothing happened. Maybe they got ice cream somewhere else. Maybe they were just there for ice cream. Maybe I was just hot, on a hot night. Or maybe the crap shiny .25 in the tool's pocket suddenly seemed less inspiring. Nothing happened. No problem for anybody.

The other incident occurred late at night at my office. A connected warehouse was built behind my back office wall, that used to be a window. It was now open into the warehouse area(its a bookshelf now, but was open for a while when the warehouse was first built.) 1:30am, the warehouse is dark, I hear all kinds of banging around down there in the dark. I take my butt ugly 12g pump and go to the open stairs down to the warehouse. I flip the lights on and rack one up(this is why people prefer 12g pumps, for that same in all languages distinctive sound.) I hear the pitter patter of feet running out the back of the warehouse-- these were competent burglars in retreat. Pickup truck scoots away into the night. Nothing happens. Everyone goes home with a story to tell.

Had they pressed the point and transitioned to incompetent burglars-now-robbers, I was not about to place my life in their incompetent hands, wonder if they were armed, what their intent was. If it's not somebody I know saying "Relax, Fred, Its me..." or some plausible reason to be banging around at 1:30 in the dark in a closed warehouse, then the responsibility for the outcome is in the hands of the perps, even if the outcome is not.

Retaliatory force would be, me jumping in my car and chasing retreating burglars in their pickup truck. Totally not justified.

In both instances(and far many more unreported just like them)those weapons functioned exactly as designed, precisely because they are designed to kill, not annoy.

My office butt ugly black 12g pump: 00 buck, 00 buck, sabot, 00 buck, 00 buck, sabot, 00 buck... and five add'l 00 buck on the stock. Never been fired at any ducks, and no insulation has ever been shredded in vain. Bought it at army/navy store decades ago. Only ever actually been fired at the state gamelands at clay targets, for fun. I hope that is always the case. But that isn't totally up to me. I only know, in the absence of actions by others, that 12g is harmless to others.

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred, you need to differentiate between the moral and the legal and need to live in a Castle Defense state. Law has its own logic and will easily traduce the logic of your logic for it need not be objectively logical but has real force behind it. Or, you do not want to be caught up in legal machinery if you can help it.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both weapons were used and effective without firing. In both instances, no long lasting effect of any type of force or aggression from all involved.

This is the huge main body of the iceberg below the surface that no one ever sees... the millions of times when brandishing a weapon without firing prevents harm to good people by thwarting the intentions of bad people.

So many times just the willingness to pull the trigger is sufficient to convince bad people to stop.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred, you need to differentiate between the moral and the legal and need to live in a Castle Defense state. Law has its own logic and will easily traduce the logic of your logic for it need not be objectively logical but has real force behind it. Or, you do not want to be caught up in legal machinery if you can help it.

--Brant

For sure. PA has both Castle Defense and SYG friendly statute...for now. In addition, in some courts, local judges who comment on cases of homeowners meeting incompetent burglars with shotguns along the lines of '...and this should happen more often; maybe these idiots would start to think twice.' But, in any given court, in front of any given judge or jury, who knows? There is rule of law, and then, there is rule of the local majority. Exactly as you say.

What is of some minor concern is, ongoing attempts to federalize/restrict both Castle Defense and SYG laws, rendering the idea of living in a Castle Defense state moot at some point. But I don't see that happening, even if it is being attempted.

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both weapons were used and effective without firing. In both instances, no long lasting effect of any type of force or aggression from all involved.

This is the huge main body of the iceberg below the surface that no one ever sees... the millions of times when brandishing a weapon without firing prevents harm to good people by thwarting the intentions of bad people.

So many times just the willingness to pull the trigger is sufficient to convince bad people to stop.

Greg

Greg:

Exactly-- because nothing happens. No weapon is fired. Nothing to report. And yet, the weapon in those instances is effective precisely because it is lethal. This effectiveness works two ways -- both in the decision to threaten the projection of aggression, and in the decision to resist the threat of aggression.

They were separate circumstances in the instances I described. I did not overtly brandish a weapon or wave it around in the public instance. From a distance, anyone observing would have no idea I was doing anything other than loosening my shirt. To someone in front of me, who had my immediate attention and vice versa, they no doubt realized I was armed as I attempted to find relief from the evenings heat. And I politely commented on how hot the night was, which was a fact. It was still a judgement call; under concealed carry laws, they are concealed carry laws-- by making it known, even inadvertently, that I was armed, I was elevating the situation. I understand that. But the alternative was to do nothing -- to wait until young masked mr do rag zippered sweatshirt on a hot summer night had run into the shop while the little buzzy tinted windows jap car driver waited idling and illegally parked right outside the door, where my wife and sons were picking out ice cream and then react to their ability to manage their own choices. He could have filed a complaint that I intimidated him with my inadvertent disclosure that I was armed. He had no obligation to do anything other than stand his ground and do whatever he was going to do in that public place. Amazingly, he did not.

Nothing happened. And in a world where I take the responsibility for the outcomes of my decisions, that same world must hold itself accountable in the instance of disarming only me by force in that situation and making me impotently watch my wife and sons risk getting get shot in a botched robbery attempt by some shit for brains.

Where are the statistics for these nothing happened events? I was involved in two over the course of the last 20 years. Nothing happened.

Where are the statistics for the instances of shootings in 'gun free' zones -- zones effective only in disarming the victims? Where is the accounting for those deaths and injuries?

regards,

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg:

Exactly-- because nothing happens. No weapon is fired. Nothing to report. And yet, the weapon in those instances is effective precisely because it is lethal. This effectiveness works two ways -- both in the decision to threaten the projection of aggression, and in the decision to resist the threat of aggression.

They were separate circumstances in the instances I described. I did not overtly brandish a weapon or wave it around in the public instance. From a distance, anyone observing would have no idea I was doing anything other than loosening my shirt. To someone in front of me, who had my immediate attention and vice versa, they no doubt realized I was armed as I attempted to find relief from the evenings heat. And I politely commented on how hot the night was, which was a fact. It was still a judgement call; under concealed carry laws, they are concealed carry laws-- by making it known, even inadvertently, that I was armed, I was elevating the situation. I understand that. But the alternative was to do nothing -- to wait until young masked mr do rag zippered sweatshirt on a hot summer night had run into the shop while the little buzzy tinted windows jap car driver waited idling and illegally parked right outside the door, where my wife and sons were picking out ice cream and then react to their ability to manage their own choices. He could have filed a complaint that I intimidated him with my inadvertent disclosure that I was armed. He had no obligation to do anything other than stand his ground and do whatever he was going to do in that public place. Amazingly, he did not.

Nothing happened. And in a world where I take the responsibility for the outcomes of my decisions, that same world must hold itself accountable in the instance of disarming only me by force in that situation and making me impotently watch my wife and sons risk getting get shot in a botched robbery attempt by some shit for brains.

Where are the statistics for these nothing happened events? I was involved in two over the course of the last 20 years. Nothing happened.

Where are the statistics for the instances of shootings in 'gun free' zones -- zones effective only in disarming the victims? Where is the accounting for those deaths and injuries?

regards,

Fred

I think of myself and my loved ones as being a good nation (on a micro scale). And every good nation needs a "nuclear arsenal" to protect itself from bad nations who also have "nuclear arsenals"...

...because one of the finest and most effective deterrents to bad nations is mutually assured destruction. :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • 10 months later...

Something like gun control only helps in increasing the number of victims. Gun control laws are made on the premise that humans have a general evil tendency to commit crime and if they have any weapons, that much easy it becomes for them to do so. But that it not the case clearly. Those who want to commit crime can commit it anyhow and those who will not, will not irrespective of gun; but surely they will get to defend themselves. Allowing guns will infact keep criminals more on guard and ordinary citizens more fearless, with a feeling of security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alexander writes:

Something like gun control only helps in increasing the number of victims. Gun control laws are made on the premise that humans have a general evil tendency to commit crime and if they have any weapons, that much easy it becomes for them to do so. But that it not the case clearly. Those who want to commit crime can commit it anyhow and those who will not, will not irrespective of gun; but surely they will get to defend themselves. Allowing guns will infact keep criminals more on guard and ordinary citizens more fearless, with a feeling of security.

That's an example of the stupidity of a feminized liberal law which only affects the lawful Americans.

Reminds me of an joke from an old 1970's TV comedy "All in the Family"...

He actually has a valid point! :laugh:

(lighten up, Brant... it's just an old thread :wink: )

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now