Ayn Rand on Gun Control

[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

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?

If someone has the power "to allow" me to defend myself, I shouldn't be there. That's one reason I moved from New Jersey back to Arizona in 1995.

--Brant

still room for the likes of me

[Selene]

[Selene]

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles#ixzz2GxDxGKE1

[Dglgmut]

The right to bear arms is one thing, but what about the requirement to bear arms, sort of like they have in Switzerland?

I wonder if this makes sense... People tend to screw themselves out of freedom voluntarily... Obviously you can't force people to have guns, but what if you made them pay for it... as, like, a freedom tax, and therefore they would be likely to accept the gun and the training.

I know freedom tax is a contradiction in terms, but think about it... Freedom ain't free, as the saying goes. If everyone was forced to pay for a gun and training, more people would be armed and competent (competition amongst training programs), and more people would be exposed to guns and reducing the fixation that people seem to have on them.

Just a thought.

[syrakusos]

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats' feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles#ixzz2GxDxGKE1

Your chances of dying in a jet airliner accident are only marginally less than your chances of dying from jumping on the furniture. So, should beds and counces be inspected to the same standard as airliners?

OK... I could not find "jumping on the bed" but will you accept tip-overs?

"From 2000 to 2011, tip-overs of TVs, furniture or other appliances killed 349 people – 84 percent of whom were children, according to a new Consumer Product Safety Commission report (.pdf file). 2011 marked the highest one-year total during that time (41), up from 31 in 2010 and 27 in 2009."

"According to the agency's count, 401 people died on commercial and charter planes in 2011 around the world, down from 726 in 2010."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/airplane-deaths-record-2011-report-article-1.999500#ixzz2HLzliz9e

[Dglgmut]

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?

Maybe Carol can enlighten us? Or anyone who supports gun control. Why is it so scary to have people trained to use guns in the same building as children?

[Brant Gaede]

That does it! I'm not playing basketball next year for him!

--Brant

it's hard to give up my hoop dreams

[Dglgmut]

I found her line, "The law is the law if it becomes law, and you're just willing to break it," a bit disturbing.

[JeffM]

If the only morally acceptable use of force is retaliatory, then how does one morally justify outlawing, banning, regulating guns/magazines/ammo at all?

If I own a 6 round revolver, or double automatic machine guns on a swivel with 10,000 round ammo belt - what difference does it make if I am harming no one? What gives the populace or government claiming to represent them any right what so ever to initiate force against me? Nothing does.

Understandably, explosive weapons may threaten harm to neighbors by their mere existence on your property. But even that must be investigated and the threat to others' right to life proven valid before they retaliate with force to disarm you.

While the Founding Fathers were not referring to machine guns with the 2nd Amendment, perhaps the more important takeaway is the fundamental right to bear arms to protect oneself from not just criminals, but a tyrannical government. How are citizens supposed to protect themselves against a government? With comparable weapons, of course.

I see absolutely nothing to justify regulating, registering, or banning certain/any types of guns. If the only moral use of force is retaliatory, then it is just that - a crime or valid threat of a crime must be present in order to act with force. And if we as individuals are to maintain the ability to defend against a militarized tyrannical government, we must be free to exploit the best products from the best minds to make that retaliation in self-defense plausible.

[BaalChatzaf]

^ ^ ^

Think of the possibility of Reckless Endangerment. With a weapon the spews and cannot be precisely aimed, attempts at self defense may take out collateral targets. That is why the 2nd Amendment does not cover Bombs and Chemical/Bacteriological Weapons. Since everyone has the right of self defense they should be able to obtain a weapon that can be aimed and can be use to deter or harm only those who are attacking one.

Many weapons of war do not fit in with this description and are probably not protected under either the 2nd or 9th amendment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

The Usual Bullshit argument that would end up preventing good folks from defending themselves and assuring only criminals and cops (who regularly take bribes) and the army are the only armed elements in society. Since the army cannot be around where we need them and when we need them that means the good folk of the land would be defenseless or in wait for the cop to finish his coffee and donuts and come running when trouble comes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

^ ^ ^

Think of the possibility of Reckless Endangerment. With a weapon the spews and cannot be precisely aimed, attempts at self defense may take out collateral targets. That is why the 2nd Amendment does not cover Bombs and Chemical/Bacteriological Weapons. Since everyone has the right of self defense they should be able to obtain a weapon that can be aimed and can be use to deter or harm only those who are attacking one.

Many weapons of war do not fit in with this description and are probably not protected under either the 2nd or 9th amendment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Actually the 2nd covers everything you can think of, but what matters is judicial interpretation. The 2nd is actually something--almost something--of a "positive" or granted right as opposed to a natural right which is the right to self defense and, somewhat, a right to property--say the property of a weapon. This right to weapons is a right derivative to the basic right of self defense. There is another amendment in the Bill of Rights which covers this without mentioning it specifically. Take away the 2nd and you still have rights to self defense and property. If you have the right to self defense you certainly have the right to defend yourself with something, natch. The main purpose of the 2nd is to prevent tyranny from being established or maintained because the militia is not controlled by the central government which has no standing army to speak of. So it is also the right to form a militia. Since John, Harry and Lance have guns, they can go down to the courthouse and assemble prior to marching on Washington. Today that seems quaint and impractical. Form a militia and you are likely to be considered a Nazi by the media powers that be. If no actual militia de jure but John, et al. still have guns (militia de facto), then when Federal agents appear to do bad things they might get shot. There is a satire on this called "The Whiskey Rebellion" published in the 1920s, I think: "Aunt Polly" and her children go out to shoot revenue officers for sport and have a picnic with whiskey refreshment.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

While the Founding Fathers were not referring to machine guns with the 2nd Amendment, perhaps the more important takeaway is the fundamental right to bear arms to protect oneself from not just criminals, but a tyrannical government. How are citizens supposed to protect themselves against a government? With comparable weapons, of course.

Comparable weapons? Can an ordinary citizen acquire an Abrams Tank, a jet fighter that can shoot depleted uranium shells from a Gattling gun? Really? Ordinary citizens even if they formed a de facto militia cannot match the standing army in weapons or strength.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

While the Founding Fathers were not referring to machine guns with the 2nd Amendment, perhaps the more important takeaway is the fundamental right to bear arms to protect oneself from not just criminals, but a tyrannical government. How are citizens supposed to protect themselves against a government? With comparable weapons, of course.

Comparable weapons? Can an ordinary citizen acquire an Abrams Tank, a jet fighter that can shoot depleted uranium shells from a Gattling gun? Really? Ordinary citizens even if they formed a de facto militia cannot match the standing army in weapons or strength.

Ba'al Chatzaf

While it's extremely unlikely that the standing army would ever let itself be used in a general way to wage war on the American citizenry, if this country had no standing army--aside from the fact the world today would be quite different--ordinary citizens would indeed have such weapons just in case of foreign invaders. The militias would be called up into a standing army as needed for that. Powerful naval vessels would patrol the coasts and they'd be essentially privately owned and manned. This sort of thing is both implicit and explicit in the founding of this country, but it all went to the hell of power aggrandizement in the central government made structurally and ironically possible by the Constitutional Convention resulting in the bloody so-called "Civil War" and the clear end of "states' rights". Don't get me wrong. The United States was going to get a strong enough central government, if only to stand up to bitch-slapping by Great Britain, which took the War of 1812 and didn't quit entirely until they paid reparations for the likes of the Alabama on or just after 1865. Then the Brits bitch-kissed the US enough to get them through WWI and WWII and out of the Middle East. But the southern states and their slavery should have gone their own way out of independence from the mother country. Slavery was sanctioned instead and it was that sanction that was attacked by the abolitionists. Like the US, Jefferson was a hypocrite for freedom and freedom was the loser.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Some readers of this thread may be interested to read the response I just posted on Facebook to my step-daughter's mother-in-law's anti-"assault weapons" comment.

She wrote: Back when the second amendment was created everyone had a powder horn. A six year old could run really fast during reloading.

To which I replied: Six year olds weren't made helpless and defenseless by the government like they are today. There were no "gun free zones," where people had the cruel illusion of being "safe." Just like the 1st Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is a freedom we have that is needed to protect us against tyrannical government. 200 years ago, government could point muskets at us, so muskets in the hands of the people amounted to an "equalizer." Today government can point semi-automatic weapons at us. And there are mobs (remember the Rodney King riots, and how Korean store owners protected their businesses?). Semi-automatics ~are~ a vital necessity for protection against tyrannical government and mob violence. My six-year-old grandchildren are ~safer~ in a society that has not yet taken away the right for individual citizens to own such weapons. They're at more risk of dying in a fire that burns down their school.

[Dglgmut]

I bet you got some nice replies, posting something like that on Facebook.

[9thdoctor]

Here's a terrific new piece by David Mamet on gun control:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html

[Brant Gaede]

Here's a terrific new piece by David Mamet on gun control:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html

A good article with many fresh perspectives. He does get confused between assault weapons and sub-machine guns. The latter is a sub-category of the former. Generally speaking I can do more damage with an M-16 on semi-auto than full auto for full auto is an ammo waster. The sooner you empty your magazine the more vulnerable you are. A 30 rd mag at 600 rds/min is empty in 2 secs. This is why on auto the modern M-16, last I heard, is limited to 3 rd bursts. This means the soldier in under-trained. I never had a problem conserving my ammo. A much more deadly weapon is a bolt-action scoped weapon of about .30 cal. if the action is plus 300 yrds. One on one your M-16 will likely make you a loser, full auto or semi-auto*.

--Brant

*not in the jungle or heavily wooded areas

[Dglgmut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqpzOSYqX3c

[Selene]

I love this website...

The ultimate goal of the gun control scam is to disarm America. Enslaving an unarmed populace is easier than oppressing people who can protect themselves. Governments have done this throughout history. There are new reports about this hot topic and the laws coming out of Washington DC and the different states every day.

She continued later in the article to quote from Atlas:

I found a compelling quote from the novel, Atlas Shrugged, written by Ayn Rand and made into a two-part movie. Russian born Ayn Rand moved to the United States in the mid 1920s. She wrote several successful plays and novels based on her experience in Russia. In Atlas Shrugged, her last and most famous novel, she dramatized her unique philosophy in an intellectual mystery, integrating ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, economics and sex. After this, she wrote and lectured on her philosophy—Objectivism, which she characterized as a philosophy for living on earth. This quote is fiction, but she based it on real life, government, and human nature, and it partly explains our sweeping new laws:

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

The successful implementation of these news gun laws will cause havoc in America. This one issue is at the heart of American uniqueness and freedom. Washington wants to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. They’re betting most of us won’t give up our guns and will fight registration and confiscation. In 2009, some 310 million guns were in the US owned by approximately 20 to 50 percent of the population. While they won’t immediately ban all of these weapons, Senator Diane Feinstein has introduced measures to prohibit over 150 different types of guns. That will turn many peace-loving Americans into criminals almost overnight.

Next to the sanction of the victim and the acceptance that many altruists subconsiouly worship dying, this was one of the truly confirmational insights that she provided me in Atlas.

http://politichicks.tv/column/is-america-becoming-a-nation-of-lawbreakers/

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Yeah, but the gun law-breakers will know they're breaking the law so x the guilt thingy.

--Brant

[Selene]

Yeah, but the gun law-breakers will know they're breaking the law so x the guilt thingy.

--Brant

Clarify that statement Brantd. I am not fullly sure what point you are making.

[Brant Gaede]

Ferris's speech about inducing guilt with un-unbreakable laws.

--Brant

[Selene]

Ferris's speech about inducing guilt with un-unbreakable laws.

--Brant

Hmm, I am not so sure that there are not a "significant minority" of gun owners, who, have guns because of fear, or, "social peer pressure" and those are the folks that could have unresolved "guilt."

A...

[Brant Gaede]

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