- 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...
It will take a constitutional amendment just to make the existing gun laws constitutional.
Government has proven repeatedly that they cannot be trusted with power. Giving government more power is not the answer. Any such system invades the privacy of all law abiding gun owners, and I guarantee that government will use the data it collects to build a database of gun ownership. That MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO OCCUR.
This unconstitutional opinion of police chiefs is nothing more than another statist power grab.
And I agree with that: my mind is made up, too, and I find experts who agree with me. Ayn Rand was less than sanguine about gun control. She said that it is not important. She also said that no one has a right to kill other people. And she admitted that she had no answer to balance that against your right to defend yourself. All of that being as it may, consider that Israel has background investigations for firearms licensing -- and firearms training is mandatory for gun owners.
Finally, the much-touted Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government. That is true of the entire Bill of Rights, except as certain rights have been incorporated to the states by judicial action. Conservatives who oppose the English tradition of bench-made law would have to live in a world where the Federal government cannot collect taxes for a national church, but the states could, as in fact, they did. Massachusetts collected taxes for the Congregational Church until 1838. So, gun control, being a local issue, is perfectly within the framework of the Bill of Rights.
And it makes sense.. Certainly, licensing the ownership of a tool whose only purpose is to kill, is necessary and proper in a civilized society.
"Objective" law is not the same thing as "Objectivist" law. Rand expounded the former, not the latter. While she did record an interesting interview with her lawyer, Henry Mark Holzer, she never attempted a philosophy of law.
Objective law is law that is public and static. Roman law was an example of that. It was not at all about protecting individual liberties, but it was known to all and enforced the same for everyone. That is objective law. Rand pointed out that the evil of 20th century dictatorships was not their draconian laws, but the fact that the whim of a bureaucrat could make them elastic: "The Aristocracy of Pull."
The Bill of Rights was meant to limit the Federal government only, not capital-G "Government" in the abstract. Various states did include various bills of rights in their constitutions. To know your rights in your state, read your state's constitution. It was quietly swept under the rug, but in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and 11 other states, you could not vote if you were an atheist. You could not be called as a witness in a trial "... truth, whole truth, nothing but... so help you God." If you do not believe in God, what would stop you from lying? That went away in 1990 from a case in South Carolina, but that state-level case was not at all a Federal matter. It never got that far... So, in theory, I suppose, it could come up again, that some state would deny a juror who is an atheist.
All of that is to say, if your state requires this or that of guns, then so it is under law. Here in Texas, open carry is illegal.
I think Rand wrote about "bringing the use of retaliatory physical force under objective control", which meant that citizens differ to the government to properly enforce law with physical force, and only when force had been initiated.
If you live in a rural area with wild beasts and thieves running amok, then perhaps you would need to buy a gun. You would also need a car or pick-up truck, and you got a license for that. What's the difference?
If you live in an urban area with police cars cruising the streets, then do you need an automatic weapon? No, you don't.
If you say people can purchase guns and move them to wherever they please, then you are not arguing against gun control. You are arguing for check points for "weapons and joints".
I read Objectivists, theoretically, or students of it, writing in favor of all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership. I thought this would be one place in which I didn't have to deal with this twisted rhetoric. I am aghast at the comments I read.
the only purpose of a firearm is to kill". Total NONSENSE. The purpose of a firearm is to propel a small projectile at a rapid rate of speed. That's all. What the human holding the firearm chooses to do has nothing to do with the firearm - it is completely and totally in the mind and intention of the user.
"If you live in a rural area with wild beasts and thieves running amok, then perhaps you would need to buy a gun. You would also need a car or pick-up truck, and you got a license for that. What's the difference?" You are somewhat correct; the differences are small. THAT"S WHY IT'S A BAD IDEA. We license cars, so we should license firearms? Ummmm, why do we license cars? Work it out.
If you live in an urban area with police cars cruising the streets, then do you need an automatic weapon? No, you don't.
One of the cutting satirical remarks made by many gun owners is that, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. If you're in trouble, you're in trouble NOW. And, since the Supreme Court has ruled that, if you call the police for help, they don't have to come help you, what's the point of them being there? Even if they were at the right place at the right time! and Finally, and I am shocked that someone writing on an Objectivist forum does not know that it is almost impossible for a citizen to obtain an automatic weapon- unless he breaks the law to do so.
Gun Rights activists write on these kinds of topics all the time. Has anyone here who suggests any sort of control, registration or restriction bothered to do any reading on the subject? The NRA's magazine and website have a section called "The Armed Citizen". It gives examples of people, old and young, female and male, in urban areas or suburbs, defending themselves, their families, and their property. And every single story cites the source, so one may check it out for accuracy.
Maybe reading something by the NRA is too "slanted". Go then, find one of Gary Kleck's 2 books on this subject, and read. You'll find facts, most of them from the FBI database.
Yes, it would be good if people agreed to use firearms only for defensive purposes. Unfortunately, the person who tried to hijack my sister's car, and was driven off by her firing her gun at him, did not make that promise. My sister did - she's an Objectivist. That's what is means to be an Objectivist - you promise that you will not initiate violence. How do you intend to deal with the situation where "the good guys" have had training, given their word, and are responsible - and "the bad guys" haven't and aren't? By not allowing anyone, including the good guys, access to an efficient means of self defense?
I agree that Rand is rather vague on the subject of gun control. But she certainly was NOT vague on the initiation of force. Neil Smith strengthens the arguments by pointing out that a 2# chunk of steel is a wonderful equalizer between a 120# woman and a 250# man.
But what is that 120# woman, faced with a 250# man who has just told her that he intends to rape her and then kill her, going to do - trapped in in the morass of government laws, regulations, requirements, all designed to "keep people safe" and "ensure proper training" and on define her "needs", and on, and on......what is she going to DO? Ask the rapist to please put his pants back on and come back next week? Or will she, valuing her life above all things, use an efficient means of self-defense,
and
stop
him?
In the discussion about the Constitution, state law, misinformed people, and frightened people, imagine yourself there. She did pass the background check, and her class starts next week. She's been reading works by women and men on self defense.
What will you tell her to do, Objectivists?
If you want to argue "shoulds" then you should consider the contradictions in the Constitution. We have had a couple of discussions about it here in the Gulch.
As far as "is" is concerned, your state can and probably does limit your Celestial Right to Bear Arms. Again: in Texas, open carry is illegal. Do you think that Texas is some wimpy liberal do-gooder state? It may well be so, under the surface: fascism is just another kind of socialism. But in that case, you need to provide a more nuanced theory to explain all of the facts.