- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Recall also: "Force is appropriate...in retaliation...against those who have initiated its use." No one can apply that force who is not armed.
But you realize that if you don't strike at the beast, it will eventually kill everyone before it kills itself!
Rand did a good job Painting it as him destroying property that was WRONGFULLY taken from others, who would probably prefer their property be destroyed (at least that was my read on her justification, and it's been a decade since my last read through).
And before 2020, I hated the thought of it, TBH. But after witnessing the depth of corruption in our government. I am not sure they deserve any quarter or consideration, as they have shown there is no equal protection. Flynn did nothing, and had to get a pardon. A Lawyer LIED, and he gets community service?
I agree with your other comments in this tread. You appear to have a greater knowledge of Ayn than I do but believe we both draw the same conclusions.
The Atlas Society has an interesting write up on the ideas of gun rights in objectivism:
https://www.atlassociety.org/post/why...
My summary is that she was a supporter in a tangential manner. She viewed them both as an instrument of tyranny and freedom.
https://sellingthesecondamendment.com...
We need a better way to ensure we maximize white blood cells (honest people) inside our body (the country), without getting rid of all the white blood cells and believing some external antibiotics (law enforcement) will solve the problem.
In the grand scheme of things, I guess I don't really need firearms for general protection, being over 200 lbs, strong and trained in martial arts. However, 1) almost no one wins a fight without getting at least hit, and 2) against more than one person, or just someone with a knife, the odds get much worse. At some point, I'll be 75, and strength is not going to be on my side. Firearms equalize this significantly, particularly for slighter people like virtually 100% of women.
I would have no issue with "reasonable" restrictions (e.g. tests). However, the gun control lobby is not interested in reasonable. Focus on ARs is a perfect example. They are virtually NEVER used in crime. Therefore, we focus on a fight over unreasonable.
All of this has little to do with what Ayn would've said.
What part of "shall not be infringed" does anyone fail to comprehend??
NFA, especially, is a violation of the Constitution.
I'm hoping the present admin passes something clearly overreaching (like the present House Bill) and SCOTUS sets a precedent flipping the whole thing. Otherwise the erosion is going to continue. Appointing the last SCOTUS justice, may be the only thing left pretty soon. Oh, and if that happens, expect Congress to begin proceedings to impeach a couple of judges, which will then be a basis for going against the precedent.
2022 is the whole domestic game now, unless Gulching.
Problem is .... "they" are move willing to use their guns than are we.
"they" are those sworn to uphold the Constitution above all else yet, seemingly, have no problem "enforcing" rules and legislation above the Highest Law .... to do so is Treason and the penalty for Treason is death.
I don't like the 1934 National Firearms Act, but it sure as shit limited the 2nd Amendment right, and SCOTUS has upheld the act in several cases.
If you are asserting we should go to battle stations over some silly regulation like painting muzzles orange, then go for it. If you are asserting we should go to battle stations over a firearm confiscation plan, then I'm sure you won't be alone.
We did not stand up and say, "Hell, No" then, just like most have not stood on their hind feet, grown a pair, and refused the "mask nonsense".
NO ONE, save God Almighty and your mother, has the Right (legal, moral, or ethical) to tell you have you may, or may not do to keep yourself safe.
And, No, NFA does NOT LIMIT THE 2nd Amendment ..... IT LIMITS YOU
Zealotry is unhelpful, and takes credibility away from this or any argument.
Let's just characterize your position. 1) Do you think the second amendment protects individuals rights to own nuclear warheads. 2) Do you think individuals should be allowed to have nuclear warheads.
Our Founders owned the ultimate destructive weapons of their age - are we less than they. If our SERVANTS can be trusted with such weapons - why not we, their MASTERS.
Sorry to say, but, you are a fool's fool and quite proud of the fact.
Best of Luck
So the answer to my question: Do you think the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own nuclear weapons, is "yes". Wasn't "Yes" so much easier to write? Let me help you again, "yes". You can just cut and paste it next time, unless you are some Chinese douche seeking to incite argument.
Not to continue a fruitless discussion, but where did I claim to be an expert?
If you choose to respond (recommend you don't), let's proceed from "You think individuals should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons, without infringement". Keep going. How is the country stable with individuals, like Anzor Tsarnaev, able to procure nuclear weapons?
Marion: "We'd all be much better off if there wasn't a single gun left in this valley - including yours".
Shane: "A gun is only a tool, Marion, as good or as bad as the man using it".
Gee, 68 years ago, even Hollywood could get it right.
AR should stand for America's Rifle given how many, simple, ergonomic, widely used and customizable they are now. However, I prefer mine in 7.62x39. Think that round is superior to 5.56x45 for most uses. Just finished building a side-charging upper for one.
MA made ARs largely illegal too, but grandfathered the old ones and magazines. What was the military's line on AR lubrication?
I have one Colt, and I will never buy from that company again. Colt was twice run by retired military generals. Each time they took a decidedly anti-civilian stance...looking down their noses at use as if we are lesser. The first was an AR seer-block such that an auto seer could not be installed. It was attached a couple of ways, always with blind hardened pins. This would be ok, but it also would not allow the upper to be closed if it had a MilSpec bolt in it (like virtually all modern bolts). Therefore, my preban wouldn't function with any upper except the original Colt A2-style upper. Guess what General-shmuck-boy? A couple of hours with a Dremel and cut-off tool, and that POS you put in my lower, is in a bag marked "_uck Colt". After reading more of the history of that company, I will never buy from them again until they go the way of Remington, and are bought by an American.
Love the individual using the tool as intended and Hate the fool using it for evil.
Q: What’s your attitude toward gun control?
A1: I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it is not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, non-criminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It is not an important issue, unless you’re ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn’t very practical. [Ford Hall Forum, 1971]
A2: It is a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people — they are not carried for hunting animals — and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don’t know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim. [Ford Hall Forum, 1973]
https://sellingthesecondamendment.com...
However, she is human, not a god. She can be wrong, and we can disagree. For example, smoking is completely stupid. It killed her.
1. She was not wrong about smoking. That is a right and she chose to smoke albeit with a filter.
Furthermore, that is not what killed her.
2. Owning a gun is a right.
I challenge you to name something she said or did that was morally wrong.
You are correct, Owning a firearm is a right. I didn't say it wasn't a right. However, Ayn said somethings that were ambiguous about her support for people having firearms.
I was not attempting to equate the right to smoking to the right to own firearms. I would point out that one is fundamentally protected by the Constitution and the other is unfortunately protected only by implication. In addition, I would note that smoking can affect others, and as such it can cause involuntary servitude. Milton Friedman explains this more clearly than Ayn. It is unclear if Ayn's smoking did this or not. However, I didn't imply that it did.
I didn't say she did anything morally wrong. I said she was human and was occasionally wrong. Perhaps if she said "Yes, the Second Amendment is morally correct. Owning a firearm is an individual right. We Objectivists should all support that individual right, and the Government should not infringe on that individual right", then it would be clear. Nothing I can find from her is absolutely clear on this subject.
I challenge you to lighten up... and if you have a quote that is 100% clear from her on firearm ownership, provide it.
Smoking is protected by right, not "implication".
"Wrong" = "Morally wrong". Being human does not say one must be morally wrong sometimes.
You call yourself an Objectivist, yet you seem to want question AR. If you understood her positions of such issues, then you would not need me to provide quotes..If you do not fully understand her philosophy, then you should not call yourself an Obj.
Do you have the data I asked for or are you just going to be silent now?
I now recall getting in similar circular, semi-religious arguments with you before.
I presented a half-dozen quotes demonstrating Ayn's lack of documented resolve. If you have a point, evidence, and logical argument, present it. Otherwise, go waste your time trying to draw acolytes from young boys.
I saw no AR quotes. You seem delusional. Bye.
"I do not know enough about it [gun control] to have an opinion, except to say that it is not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, non-criminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It is not an important issue, unless you’re ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn’t very practical." [Ford Hall Forum, 1971]
Quite clearly Ayn states her opinion that registration is not an issue.
"It is a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people — they are not carried for hunting animals — and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don’t know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim."
[Ford Hall Forum, 1973]
Quite clearly -
“With modern technique and modern weapons at its disposal, a ruthless minority can hold millions in slavery indefinitely. What can one thousand unorganized, unarmed men do against one man with a machine gun?”
Clearly she is noting that unabridged firearms access can allow few to dominate many (like in the Russian Revolution).
"The second amendment exists in the milieu of the entire Constitution and, more specifically, in that group of amendments that are intended to insure specific freedoms for US citizens. It is difficult to say that any one or more of these freedoms is more or less important than the others. However, if I were intent on subjugating a populace, I would first work to limit freedoms of speech, assembly, property, habeas corpus, press, religion, and other interpersonal communications. Once the populace is “properly” subservient, removing their personal weapons should be fairly easy." This needs to be in context, but is not unanimous support of Second Amendment rights.
https://sellingthesecondamendment.com...
If you want to continue this discussion, without further pathetic derogatory attempts, you will address these quotes, and demonstrate that are unambiguous and supportive of some version (you have yet to voice) of the Second Amendment.
Given a few of these, and other comments posted here (e.g. that individuals should have access to nuclear weapons per the Second Amendment), I suggest you choose to argue against me 1) that Ayn is clear on the subject, and individuals should have access to nuclear weapons, or 2) that Ayn is ambiguous and nuclear weapons are sufficiently chaotic to exclude protection by the Second Amendment.
If after this note, you choose to divide the parts of choices 1 and 2, rather than address the main, you are simply a logical fool and a coward. I'll give you plenty of time to ask daddy what the right thing to say is....
"I don’t know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim." Hmmm, strange quote from AR seemingly lacking in rational thought. For example, if can't justify owning a pistol "... without giving you the privilege to kill [by shooting] people at whim", then how do you justify owning a steak knife without giving you the privilege to kill [by stabbing] people at whim? This is a place me and AR part ways. Killing at whim is not justified by weapons of any sort lying about.
Ayn was brilliant and inspirational, but she was sometimes wrong, like all people. On this subject she faltered.
...or maybe it is the guy who types LOUDLY, thinking individuals should have nuclear weapons.
Rearden had a gun....
We had a second set of monthly get-togethers, these organized around a single presentation by whichever member wanted to do it, and generally at his or her home. One memorable instance of these was held by a physician at his home, and not only was the subject titled "Dagny, Get Your Gun," he had a firing range literally built into his basement - a 3' diameter culvert extending some forty feet from a storage room, terminating in a small room with a down-angled iron plate, with a modified chain-type garage-door opener mechanism attached to its apex to run a paper target all the way to the back.
He was a gun collector with a bewildering array of weapons, licensed full-auto submachine guns among them, and sent a list of calibers with the invitation to bring our ammo for some post-presentation shooting.
Anyway, though I don't remember the details and don't have the time at the moment to research the point in Atlas, he chose as the starting point for his presentation a scene (if I recall correctly it's around the point where Galt has been taken captive by the collectivist goons) where Dagny arms herself to bust Galt out.
If anyone can confirm this and maybe provide an excerpt of the relevant text from that scene, please feel free.
But yes, private ownership of firearms - particularly in context of self-defense - is a direct component of one's right to one's life and therefore integral to Objectivist philosophy, so it's not an ambiguous question in the slightest.