Ayn Rand on Gun Control

[Selene]

Calvin:

"Jesus. You obviously haven't read a word that I've posted. I am clearly against gun control."

Perhaps you did not get my statement. There is no discussion or argument after your alleged support of the Second Amendment.

All of your altruistic argumentation is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned.

A...

Post script: Jesus should have had a Bushmaster and rendered that which Caesar's to the Roman soldiers who falsely crucified him in a "sword free zone!"

[Brant Gaede]

People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder.

You are embracing collectivism in the name of safety--i.e., "self-defense." If rights were a human being you have skinned him and put on his skin.

--Brant

And what rights do you have when you've been killed by a legally owned gun? Again, this is not about the right to self-defense. This is about whose self-defense. Which is more important, the rights violations of victims of legal guns, or the rights violations of victims of gun control? Since each innocent human life should be considered with equal weight under the law, the logical choice is to protect the rights of the majority--the victims of gun control.

Like I said.

I'm not aware of a primary utilitarian political-philosophical justification for rights in libertarianism or Objectivism. Same, same for economics. The bounty is derivative. Your cart is in front of the horse. Your job on this kind of forum--Objectivist Living--is to show how your cart makes the horse go. My impression is you know little about natural rights, human rights, positive and negative rights, the intellectual underpinnings of this country, etc. If I'm wrong, you're being post after post disingenuous. I don't think that's the case.

--Brant

[Xray]

A question I'd like to ask you in reference to post # 526: would you prefer living in a commuity where they don't dial 911 but regulate conflicts with the helpf of guns instead?

Yes.

But how is this supposed to work in practice?

Let's flesh it out with an example. Imagine you live in such a community and John Doe owes you a hefty sum of money which you have lent him and which he is long overdue in paying back. So far all your 'payment reminders' to John have fallen on deaf ears, and you have finally lost patience with him. You've had enough, you want your money back. Now.

So would you walk over to John's home, armed with your gun and try to get your money from him at gunpoint? But since John has a gun as well, he might be 'prepared' for your visit.

What do you do?

[BaalChatzaf]

A question I'd like to ask you in reference to post # 526: would you prefer living in a commuity where they don't dial 911 but regulate conflicts with the helpf of guns instead?

Yes.

I so, you had best wish your neighbors are not the trigger-happy sort, else sad mistakes could occur.

In principle, every one should be able to have the right (or privilege) to drive a car on the public roads.

But in fact, not everyone is fit to be granted the privilege. You don't want blind drivers and you don't want drunk drivers and you surely do not want people who are very prone to road rage driving about.

Similarly not every one is fit to be allowed to brandish loaded fire arms.

There has to be a minimal degree of certification.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder.

You are embracing collectivism in the name of safety--i.e., "self-defense." If rights were a human being you have skinned him and put on his skin.

--Brant

And what rights do you have when you've been killed by a legally owned gun? Again, this is not about the right to self-defense. This is about whose self-defense. Which is more important, the rights violations of victims of legal guns, or the rights violations of victims of gun control? Since each innocent human life should be considered with equal weight under the law, the logical choice is to protect the rights of the majority--the victims of gun control.

Like I said.

I'm not aware of a primary utilitarian political-philosophical justification for rights in libertarianism or Objectivism. Same, same for economics. The bounty is derivative. Your cart is in front of the horse. Your job on this kind of forum--Objectivist Living--is to show how your cart makes the horse go. My impression is you know little about natural rights, human rights, positive and negative rights, the intellectual underpinnings of this country, etc. If I'm wrong, you're being post after post disingenuous. I don't think that's the case.

--Brant

And if you had a nuclear bomb in your backyard, does that fall under your natural rights?

[Brant Gaede]

A question I'd like to ask you in reference to post # 526: would you prefer living in a commuity where they don't dial 911 but regulate conflicts with the helpf of guns instead?

Yes.

But how is this supposed to work in practice?

Let's flesh it out with an example. Imagine you live in such a community and John Doe owes you a hefty sum of money which you have lent him and which he is long overdue in paying back. So far all your 'payment reminders' to John have fallen on deaf ears, and you have finally lost patience with him. You've had enough, you want your money back. Now.

So would you walk over to John's home, armed with your gun and try to get your money from him at gunpoint? But since John has a gun as well, he might be 'prepared' for your visit.

What do you do ?

Why did you lend him the money in the first place? Did you accept collateral? Is he a relative? In any case if this is purely business John ruins his reputation and no one lends him any money going forward. You're likely out of the money you lent him. There are other scenarios, of course, that can play out in a more complicated way.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder.

You are embracing collectivism in the name of safety--i.e., "self-defense." If rights were a human being you have skinned him and put on his skin.

--Brant

And what rights do you have when you've been killed by a legally owned gun? Again, this is not about the right to self-defense. This is about whose self-defense. Which is more important, the rights violations of victims of legal guns, or the rights violations of victims of gun control? Since each innocent human life should be considered with equal weight under the law, the logical choice is to protect the rights of the majority--the victims of gun control.

Like I said.

I'm not aware of a primary utilitarian political-philosophical justification for rights in libertarianism or Objectivism. Same, same for economics. The bounty is derivative. Your cart is in front of the horse. Your job on this kind of forum--Objectivist Living--is to show how your cart makes the horse go. My impression is you know little about natural rights, human rights, positive and negative rights, the intellectual underpinnings of this country, etc. If I'm wrong, you're being post after post disingenuous. I don't think that's the case.

--Brant

And if you had a nuclear bomb in your backyard, does that fall under your natural rights?

The question is about self defense. Does one have the right to self defense? This right has been codified, btw; it's legally recognized. Now, off that base, does one have the right to defend oneself with something? Logically, yes. Where does a nuclear bomb fit into this logical structure, practically or philosophically? Owning a weapon is not basically the right to own a piece of property which is a gun, hence if you can buy it--that bomb, you can have and keep it, even use it because it's your property--no, the basic right is the right of self defense. If you and your friends need nuclear bombs for self defense you are on a war footing against the over-arching political authority and are participating in a revolution. You might even be the bad guys. A bad guy can defend himself from my using retaliatory force against his initiation of force, even call it self defense, but not by right. That right is mine in that context.

--Brant

bang! bang!--I shot him down!--bang! bang!

[Dglgmut]

People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder.

You are embracing collectivism in the name of safety--i.e., "self-defense." If rights were a human being you have skinned him and put on his skin.

--Brant

And what rights do you have when you've been killed by a legally owned gun? Again, this is not about the right to self-defense. This is about whose self-defense. Which is more important, the rights violations of victims of legal guns, or the rights violations of victims of gun control? Since each innocent human life should be considered with equal weight under the law, the logical choice is to protect the rights of the majority--the victims of gun control.

Like I said.

I'm not aware of a primary utilitarian political-philosophical justification for rights in libertarianism or Objectivism. Same, same for economics. The bounty is derivative. Your cart is in front of the horse. Your job on this kind of forum--Objectivist Living--is to show how your cart makes the horse go. My impression is you know little about natural rights, human rights, positive and negative rights, the intellectual underpinnings of this country, etc. If I'm wrong, you're being post after post disingenuous. I don't think that's the case.

--Brant

And if you had a nuclear bomb in your backyard, does that fall under your natural rights?

The question is about self defense. Does one have the right to self defense? This right has been codified, btw; it's legally recognized. Now, off that base, does one have the right to defend oneself with something? Logically, yes. Where does a nuclear bomb fit into this logical structure, practically or philosophically? Owning a weapon is not basically the right to own a piece of property which is a gun, hence if you can buy it--that bomb: you can have and keep it, even use it because it's your property--no, the basic right is the right of self defense. If you and your friends need nuclear bombs for self defense you are on a war footing against the over-arching political authority and are participating in a revolution. You might even be the bad guys.

--Brant

So, in America today, should an ordinary citizen be allowed to have a nuclear bomb in their backyard? And if not, why isn't it a legitimate form of self-defense?

Wouldn't preventing someone from building a nuclear bomb be a more legitimate form of self-defense?

[BaalChatzaf]

So, in America today, should an ordinary citizen be allowed to have a nuclear bomb in their backyard? And if not, why isn't it a legitimate form of self-defense?

Wouldn't preventing someone from building a nuclear bomb be a more legitimate form of self-defense?

A-Bombs are not weapons of personal defense. They cannot be aimed well and they cannot be localized in their effect to eliminate only those who are attempting to kill or harm you or your family.

A permitted weapon must be aimable and of limited effect.

A nuclear weapon is a weapon of war, not a weapon of personal defense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

People who want to ban guns are acting in the same self-defense that a homeowner does when they shoot an intruder.

You are embracing collectivism in the name of safety--i.e., "self-defense." If rights were a human being you have skinned him and put on his skin.

--Brant

And what rights do you have when you've been killed by a legally owned gun? Again, this is not about the right to self-defense. This is about whose self-defense. Which is more important, the rights violations of victims of legal guns, or the rights violations of victims of gun control? Since each innocent human life should be considered with equal weight under the law, the logical choice is to protect the rights of the majority--the victims of gun control.

Like I said.

I'm not aware of a primary utilitarian political-philosophical justification for rights in libertarianism or Objectivism. Same, same for economics. The bounty is derivative. Your cart is in front of the horse. Your job on this kind of forum--Objectivist Living--is to show how your cart makes the horse go. My impression is you know little about natural rights, human rights, positive and negative rights, the intellectual underpinnings of this country, etc. If I'm wrong, you're being post after post disingenuous. I don't think that's the case.

--Brant

And if you had a nuclear bomb in your backyard, does that fall under your natural rights?

The question is about self defense. Does one have the right to self defense? This right has been codified, btw; it's legally recognized. Now, off that base, does one have the right to defend oneself with something? Logically, yes. Where does a nuclear bomb fit into this logical structure, practically or philosophically? Owning a weapon is not basically the right to own a piece of property which is a gun, hence if you can buy it--that bomb: you can have and keep it, even use it because it's your property--no, the basic right is the right of self defense. If you and your friends need nuclear bombs for self defense you are on a war footing against the over-arching political authority and are participating in a revolution. You might even be the bad guys.

--Brant

So, in America today, should an ordinary citizen be allowed to have a nuclear bomb in their backyard? And if not, why isn't it a legitimate form of self-defense?

Wouldn't preventing someone from building a nuclear bomb be a more legitimate form of self-defense?

I think you'd be better served by a better example for nuclear bombs are too hard to make and come by.

So, in America today, should an ordinary citizen be allowed to have a nuclear bomb in their backyard? And if not, why isn't it a legitimate form of self-defense?

Wouldn't preventing someone from building a nuclear bomb be a more legitimate form of self-defense?

A-Bombs are not weapons of personal defense. They cannot be aimed well and they cannot be localized in their effect to eliminate only those who are attempting to kill or harm you or your family.

A permitted weapon must be aimable and of limited effect.

A nuclear weapon is a weapon of war, not a weapon of personal defense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Very well put. This argument is now right next door to the anarchist-minarchist debate. For Calvin to continue without merely repeating himself, he needs to declare himself an anarchist.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

So, in America today, should an ordinary citizen be allowed to have a nuclear bomb in their backyard? And if not, why isn't it a legitimate form of self-defense?

Wouldn't preventing someone from building a nuclear bomb be a more legitimate form of self-defense?

A-Bombs are not weapons of personal defense. They cannot be aimed well and they cannot be localized in their effect to eliminate only those who are attempting to kill or harm you or your family.

A permitted weapon must be aimable and of limited effect.

A nuclear weapon is a weapon of war, not a weapon of personal defense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And what about legal guns? They contribute to self-defense most of the time, but occasionally they are not as aimable and of limited effect as would be desired.

Here's another example: What if the accidental deaths from legal guns were 20 000 a year in America? Would the gun control advocates have a case in this scenario?

If there were something that humans generally could not handle responsibly (like nuclear bombs), wouldn't it be in our best interest to try to get rid of whatever it was?

[BaalChatzaf]

l Chatzaf

And what about legal guns? They contribute to self-defense most of the time, but occasionally they are not as aimable and of limited effect as would be desired.

Here's another example: What if the accidental deaths from legal guns were 20 000 a year in America? Would the gun control advocates have a case in this scenario?

If there were something that humans generally could not handle responsibly (like nuclear bombs), wouldn't it be in our best interest to try to get rid of whatever it was?

Since the right to self defense is absolute, having the means to exercise that right must also be absolute or nearly so consistent with public safety.

My proposal is to have a rational certification modality that would permit any able minded, able bodied adult to acquire fire arms provided he passed a test to indicate that he could aim the weapon properly before shooting and was a responsible person. We do not need maniacs with guns nor should be have persons with significant muscular tremors or lack of muscular control to wield such weapons.

We allow persons of sufficient age and eyesight to drive two ton vehicles on the public roads.

Anybody who is old enough, has good enough eyesight and muscular control and can pass a minimal test for competence in handling firearms should be able to obtain and use them in a legal manner.

The 9th amendment is the place to look for the right to keep and bear arms suitable for personal defense. Not the 2nd amendment which says a State can have its own militia, so the citizens of the state must be able to keep and bear arms.

ruveyn

[Brant Gaede]

Funniest thing I've read all year (Tim Connelly): "If you ban large sodas, only criminals will have large sodas."

--Brant

[Selene]

Good one!

As Brant had noted in another post, the "medical profession," particularly through the NIH, has been incrementally attempting to utilize taxpayer dollars to fund a massive, intrusive data collection of guns and patients who own guns.

Part of the Affordable Care Act's 2,800 + pages of "law" contains a defense against this over intrusion by government fascists, allegedly under the umbrella of "public health."

As this recent article in the Washington Post notes:

“This illustrates the fact that the NRA has insinuated themselves into the small crevices of anything they can to do anything in their power to prohibit sensible gun-safety measures,” said Denise Dowd, an ­emergency-care physician at a Kansas City, Mo., children’s hospital and an adviser on firearms issues to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Dowd called the provision in the health-care bill “pretty outrageous,” saying it risked creating a sense among doctors that “this is dangerous information to collect.”

“We ask our patients about many things, not because we’re anti-gun but because we have an obligation and an ethical duty to keep the kids safe,” she said.

The pediatricians group last week submitted a strongly worded letter to the Obama administration saying that pediatric advocates “vehemently reject” the gun provision in the health-care law. The group notes that the provision runs counter to guidelines included in other sections of the legislation that ask family doctors and pediatricians to inquire about the presence of guns in patients’ homes, along with other potential dangers, such as mold, lead, cigarette smoke and a lack of smoke detectors.

This four (4) page article is truly worth reading because:

1) it dramatically illustrates how corrupt and intrusive a Federal law is, as staffers, who never change, are the folks who actually make law in the Congress;

2) it precisely illustrates how lobbying effects your life in every way; and

3) it reveals how massive the administrative state is and how it is growing exponentially.

Here is the opening of the article:

The words were tucked deep into the sprawling text of President Obama’s signature health-care overhaul. Under the headline “Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights” was a brief provision restricting the ability of doctors to gather data about their patients’ gun use — a largely overlooked but significant challenge to a movement in American medicine to treat firearms as a matter of public health.

The language, pushed by the National Rifle Association in the final weeks of the 2010 debate over health care and discovered only in recent days by some lawmakers and medical groups, is drawing criticism in the wake of this month’s schoolhouse massacre of 20 children and six educators in Newtown, Conn. Some public health advocates, worried that the measure will hinder research and medical care, are calling on the White House to amend the language as it prepares to launch a gun-control initiative in January.

NRA officials say they requested the provision out of concern that insurance companies could use such data to raise premiums on gun owners. The measure’s supporters in the Senate say they did not intend to interfere with the work of doctors or researchers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nra-fingerprints-in-landmark-health-care-law/2012/12/30/e6018656-5066-11e2-950a-7863a013264b_story.html

A...

[Dglgmut]

Anybody who is old enough, has good enough eyesight and muscular control and can pass a minimal test for competence in handling firearms should be able to obtain and use them in a legal manner.

I think I agree. I was thinking how a license to own a gun would compare to drinking out of a paper bag. Prohibition of anything doesn't work, because of the scale. People started drinking out of paper bags because it gave the cops an excuse to focus on the people who were drinking in the open.

To ban guns would be unrealistic. But if you put restrictions on who can legally purchase a gun, and most people fit into that category, then it would be less tempting to sell guns illegally.

Alcohol in Canada is almost three times more expensive than in The States, because of taxes; that just shows what people are willing to tolerate.

[Frediano]

A Korean grocer stands in front of his business during the LA Riots, holding an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine.

The weapon is never fired.

The weapon has served its proper design function.

[Frediano]

Anybody who is old enough, has good enough eyesight and muscular control and can pass a minimal test for competence in handling firearms should be able to obtain and use them in a legal manner.

I think I agree. I was thinking how a license to own a gun would compare to drinking out of a paper bag. Prohibition of anything doesn't work, because of the scale. People started drinking out of paper bags because it gave the cops an excuse to focus on the people who were drinking in the open.

To ban guns would be unrealistic. But if you put restrictions on who can legally purchase a gun, and most people fit into that category, then it would be less tempting to sell guns illegally.

Alcohol in Canada is almost three times more expensive than in The States, because of taxes; that just shows what people are willing to tolerate.

Thank you to Canada for manufacturing ParaOrdnance high capacity .45s, no matter what their tax structure.

And, Yukon Jack, as far as that goes, even though at 100 proof, it goes a bit farther(by 20 proof)in the US than Canada...

[caroljane]

Anybody who is old enough, has good enough eyesight and muscular control and can pass a minimal test for competence in handling firearms should be able to obtain and use them in a legal manner.

I think I agree. I was thinking how a license to own a gun would compare to drinking out of a paper bag. Prohibition of anything doesn't work, because of the scale. People started drinking out of paper bags because it gave the cops an excuse to focus on the people who were drinking in the open.

To ban guns would be unrealistic. But if you put restrictions on who can legally purchase a gun, and most people fit into that category, then it would be less tempting to sell guns illegally.

Alcohol in Canada is almost three times more expensive than in The States, because of taxes; that just shows what people are willing to tolerate.

Thank you to Canada for manufacturing ParaOrdnance high capacity .45s, no matter what their tax structure.

And, Yukon Jack, as far as that goes, even though at 100 proof, it goes a bit farther(by 20 proof)in the US than Canada...

You're welcome. So I guess that is two votes for the Canada Party in 2016, right guys?

[Mikee]

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

"So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect."

Where have we fallen as a people when Russians have more respect for our constitution rights than we do?

From the NY times: "Let's give up on the Constitution"

"...almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

I think I'm going to throw up.

[Brant Gaede]

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

"So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect."

Where have we fallen as a people when Russians have more respect for our constitution rights than we do?

From the NY times: "Let's give up on the Constitution"

"...almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

I think I'm going to throw up.

The article is worth reading.

--Brant

[anthony]

We can fiddle about with the utility/ineffectivness argument all day, and just play into the hands of

the left's anti-gun lobby. This is not about the utilitarian - primarily - it's about being able to defend oneself, and the peace of mind it gives one.

It is not the State which allows the right of self-defence, it is a moral obligation to yourself to defend your life - including by extension all that you value.

The left/liberal speaks often of "disproportionate response". He reveals his desperate need to equalize anything and everyone. A guy comes at you with a baseball bat - well, go get one yourself; a knife, run for the kitchen drawer.

Fact is, any who intrude aggressively on another person has lost all his rights instantly, and more importantly has denied himself any moral consideration.

He is not your "equal", he's beyond the pale. Whatever action the defender takes (and without omniscience or prescience, he cannot measure how much self-defensive force is needed) is entirely up to him.

So sure he might kill. Another's life for - who knows? - his own. That's the 'arrogance' of individual moral judgment that a gun allows one, and why guns in private hands are so loathed by progressives.

HNY all!

[Selene]

Excellent Tony!

And Happy New Year my friend.

[Brant Gaede]

To ban guns would be unrealistic. But if you put restrictions on who can legally purchase a gun, and most people fit into that category, then it would be less tempting to sell guns illegally.

The implication is if it were not "unrealistic" you would go along with banning them. Well, consider this: you are advocating a supposed principle that someone else can use to try to "ban guns" because they claim it wouldn't be "unrealistic", your opinion to the contrary ignored. You cannot fight for and defend your freedom, my freedom (do you really care about my freedom?), by referencing what you claim are "facts" contrary to the other guy's "facts" instead of political-philosophical rational and moral principles--right and wrong.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

To ban guns would be unrealistic. But if you put restrictions on who can legally purchase a gun, and most people fit into that category, then it would be less tempting to sell guns illegally.

The implication is if it were not "unrealistic" you would go along with banning them. Well, consider this: you are advocating a supposed principle that someone else can use to try to "ban guns" because they claim it wouldn't be "unrealistic", your opinion to the contrary ignored. You cannot fight for and defend your freedom, my freedom (do you really care about my freedom?), by referencing what you claim are "facts" contrary to the other guy's "facts" instead of political-philosophical rational and moral principles--right and wrong.

--Brant

And how do you convince someone to allow you to defend yourself when they think it puts them in jeopardy? Wouldn't you first explain how it is not a risk to them?

[Mikee]

And how do you convince someone to allow you to defend yourself when they think it puts them in jeopardy? Wouldn't you first explain how it is not a risk to them?

No actions are risk free. You could buy a can of soup and die of botulism eating it. You would be lying to your friend if you said gun ownership was risk free. The greater risk is allowing a government to ban weapons among the citizenry.