Exactly.

Next time take a picture..I would have loved to see that creation. :)

none I knew of.

I suppose Yaron's socialist roots are sprouting.

Even IF all the criminals can be magically kept from any guns, that still leaves the biggest potential criminal on the loose and armed to the teeth - the government. Let's not forget that the main reason for the Second Amendment was to keep the government in check. The intent was for the citizens to have any and all arms that the government can have, canons included. Remember that throughout history, governments have been the biggest criminals and murderers by far. Armed citizen is the best method to keep the government honest, just like an armed citizen is the best way to keep a potential criminal honest. Any government has a potential to become criminal, a potential that is exercised much too often.

Two points: The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights) are laws that restrict the government, not the citizens.
Second point: History has clearly shown that the more armed the citizens are, the less crimes are committed. So, on what data do you base the claim that "assault" weapons should be banned? Or is it just based on feelings?

stargeezer:

The Yaron Brook talk I was referring to was: "Objectivism is Radical (and Applying Can be Hard)". In it Yaron talks of Guns and War, where he has some experience, as do I. You can Google it. And I did not intend to equate you with that monster at Sandy Hook!

Jim Wright

And how many people got hurt?

I bit my lunch time cheeseburger into the shape of a M1 tank - It's a good thing I finished it off before homeland security saw me or I'd have been downed and cuffed.

The Beta mags are reported to work great, but there are some real turds out there. I sure would not want to lug one around, even when I was young.

Last winter in FL I attended a gun show where one of the vendors specialized in AR15s with wood stock sets. They were gorgeous and I really wanted one, but I've got too many ARs in my collection.

JBW said "Then, before criticizing Yaron Brook you should read some of his books and listen to a number of his speeches. Only then can you determine whether or not he is a fool. "

Actually Jim, I'm utilizing your related information of what he said. I'm assuming that you are accurately quoting him and that he was making a honest statement of his opinion. With that accepted I can draw a conclusion based on my years of experience with guns, military, business and family life.

That conclusion is as I stated.

In you analysis of the 2nd amendment you have made the same error of misreading that most all anti gun people make. You take the clear reading of the amendment and rearrange it to mean what you want it to say.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The proper interpretation of these great words is "because a well trained militia is necessary in order for a free state to remain free and in order to field a militia in the times of need and in order that the people are trained and experienced with firearms so that this militia can be fielded, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, this right shall not be infringed."

So this then brings us to the murderous animal that killed those kids in Ct. NOBODY allowed him to buy an assault rifle. He could not have purchased the rifle himself. Here is the stupidity of passing more laws against crazy people getting guns - his mother bought it, he got into her safe somehow, stole the guns, killed her, and then killed all those kids and thankfully, himself. All of which were against the existing laws. How did he do it? With the help of his mother. This animalistic creature should have been institutionalized years before. He did not have the ability to understand he was hurting people or to separate reality from a video game. His mother was as guilty as he was because she would not allow him to be locked away where he could not kill babies.

All that given - why do you assume or equate the actions of this creature with me, the normal gun owner? I own many guns, I own over 100,000 rounds of ammunition and yes every gun I own is an "assault weapon" - right down to my 1862 Colt Musket from the Civil War.

As I mentioned in another post, one of my gun safes sits beside my desk, right here, there are around 30 handguns and around 47 long guns including 10 of the hated AR15s. Not one of these have ever threatened to shoot anybody. They are inanimate objects.

It's not the weapon that is dangerous, the person holding it is or is not dangerous

Once more I'll ask, just because a person is at the Ayn Rand Institute, do they become infallible? I think not. I also think that Yaron Brook is wrong on this if he did say he would favor banning assault weapons. It may be that he is uninformed about this subject, in which case I'd welcome the opportunity to educate him..

Jim,
First of all, I never referred to YB as a "fool." I will admit that I am always amazed at the number of Objectivists who support differing levels of firearm controland it was not my intention to offend.
The 2nd Amendment is derived directly from the natural right to self-defense which is derived from I own myself, and further back to A is A.
During the revolutionary war, many or most of the cannons were owned privately. Your suggestion as to the type of firearm to which the 2nd Amendment refers is historically and logically inaccurate.
What does the cost of keeping criminals have to do with the discussion?
If you want to put property in criminal hands quickly-make it illegal. A criminal mind sees unarmed populations as easy prey. A criminal mind respects the concept of conceal carry. If I think that man is inherently good, why would I feel the need to discern what type of firearms are reasonable for a citizen to possess or not possess? I think that is a slippery slope, leaving the door cracked for another to suggest it's reasonable that every citizen should not own a gas guzzling SUV. I have read two of YB's books and listened to many of his speeches and seen him speak. I have looked for his comments on gun control and did not find any contradictory comment. He talks about the cost of gun control as onerous. You are the one who brought it up-try and provide a link. I am just commenting to your own point. As to my domesticating pigs example. this is how I see many of these types of accepting control begin. and this willingness to be controlled is mostly concentrated in large urban areas. and the Objectivists I know who promote such controls live in large urban areas. it is only my experience, but I try to understand why THIS issue has Objectivists disagreeing over another issue. Actually, the other issue I would say Objectivists are inconsistent about is Climate Change. but that's for another post.

If you consider yourself an Objectivist you must have carefully read the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Then, before criticizing Yaron Brook you should read some of his books and listen to a number of his speeches. Only then can you determine whether or not he is a fool.

If you're making you judgement based on hearsay, or gossip, who is the fool?

The 2nd Amendment said that "we have the right to bear arms". I suggest that the "arms" our forefathers had in mind were rifles or handguns, which are for personal protection, but also to make the people knowledgeable about guns in general, if they were needed by the militia. The militia (police?) would have, on hand, the assult weapons in case of war, and would plan on having a nation of trained soldiers to call upon for quick support.

Our Government (largely consisting of morons) has picked up on the uproar of the people, fanned by the media, to ban guns and win votes. The madman who killed 20 six-year olds and 6 adults in Sandy Hook, last year, was courteous enough to kill himself, but had he not we would now have another criminal in jail for 70 or 80 years, at around $100,000 per year, to house, feed, cloth, medicate, etc., all at taxpayer expense. But first we have allowed him to buy an assual weapon, a perfect weapon for the job, and commit the crime. Starving them is torture and we don't allow torture (not openly, at least).

Yaron Brook was pointing out this enigma as a problem that needed solving. Instead of using insults as your arguments, offer a solution for this problem, one that fits the Objectivist view of Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, and a minimum of Government.

Jim Wright

I was at a gun show and saw an AR15 style semiautomatic rifle with pink pistol grip, stock, and handguards. So is that still an assault rifle? Or just an assault on the senses rifle?

Jim,
ay question gets easier if you substitute a neutral person or object for the emotion-laden one.
Thus, the question of how can an objectivist advocate laws that prohibit owning, buying or selling crystal glassware to civilians is the one you should be considering.
If you're asking how can an Objectivist advocate laws about anything,that's a different question, one which has engendered debate just about forever.

I don't know if this is still skewed this way in any current stats, but the "your handgun is more likely to be used against someone you know than....." stats included both suicides and retaliation against an abuser as "used against someone you know".
hmmmmm.

all of that is true - and soooo cool.
Although I WAS looking at a cute pink pistol a couple of weeks ago......no, really, a Glock style practice gun in .22, colored so as to make it immediately obvious which was the practice one. Bought ammo instead.

I haven't been accused of THAT since I founded the Hedonist Caucus of the Libertarian Party.

Of course the point is solid. Neil Smith said it best:A 2-pound chunk of machined steel is a great equalizer between a 105# woman and a 250# man. And the comparisons keep being true: an assault rifle against a crowd, for example. A rocket launcher against....that's as far as I'm going here and now.
But I will boast that some years ago, on National Buy-A-Gun day, when I couldn't afford a gun, I went to my friendly local arms dealer and bought a knife. A BIG Chris Reeve knife - just because "they" didn't want me to.

they're DC/NY trained.
was it in here I learned how they domesticated hogs(not comparing YB to one-just the the concept of training).
here's the recipe: get the truffles going. when the pigs aren't looking, start with one section of fence, then slowly add on sections. wehen you get down to the gate part-they are super suspicious-you might have to sweeten the pot. so now you wait the longest before you act. they get used to traveling through that one point with no fear. then you close the gate when they're in there.
now you starve them.
feed them little by little until they do what you want.
add pepper, they're naturally salty