Don't Bring Ayn Rand to a Gun Fight


PDA






fedlaw
November 20, 2004, 11:15 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/perry/perry11.html

This Advice Might Save Your Life: Don't Bring Ayn Rand to a Gun Fight
by Greg Perry
by Greg Perry



I believe it was Robert Heinlein who first said, "An armed society is a polite society." He meant armed as in packing heat. As in loaded and trained. As in cocked and locked.

Heinlein did not mean, "A society armed with information, dialogue, smarts, verbal-power-that-dispels-liberal notions, an Ayn Rand background, a memory for past LewRockwell.com articles, or an intense knowledge in Libertarian ideas."

There's a point where you must stop honing your argument about your rights and learn how to defend your rights. And that point is always far sooner than you or I think it is.

It's Time for Gunpowder Residue

Until you can defend your own self, your rights mean nothing. Sure, I wish our government was a good one. I wish the liberals would stop lying, I wish the conservatives would be conservative and not liberals, I wish everybody there thought as Ron Paul thinks. But they don't and they won't.

You should not take up arms against the government. That would be the stupidest thing you could do – and it would be the last thing you would do.

I am recommending that you learn to defend yourself and your family. That means defend them from whatever threat is active. By this I mean a physical threat. You will always lose the fight if somebody attacks you physically and you respond by quoting Ayn Rand.


The first rule of a gunfight is: Always bring a gun. (That happens to be a good rule to use in a knife fight too.)

The last line of defense you have is a gun. (In some cases, such as mine, the last line of defense is the back-up gun you wear.) Your wit is your first line of defense. Don't depend on your wit to save your life because in a real bodily threat it will not.

Concealed Carry

Readers will write me and (properly) disagree with what I'm about to suggest. I understand their logic; I used to argue the same point. I've changed my mind but if you choose to ignore the following advice, I completely trust your judgment as long as you do everything else.

If you live in a concealed-carry state (and if you don't, why not?), I recommend you get a concealed carry license. Here is my reasoning: I love my family more than I fear the government so I'd carry even if not allowed. If I'm not allowed to have a concealed weapon, I'll still arm myself. But as long as I can carry legally I will do that.

Sure my name's then on their roles. But I write for LewRockwell.com! I wrote a book for WorldNetDaily.com. I speak my mind so my name's already on their roles.

The concealed carry license is nothing but a bribe. 60 years ago, when you wanted the Mafia to leave you alone, you'd pay them off with "hush money." The word "license" is code for "hush money" to the United States Government. Pay them their hush money license fee and they'll leave you alone. For now at least. Right now, they care more about the vig than anything else.

Getting stopped without one ensures lots of trouble for you. When you didn't pay the Gambinos and Gottis, they broke your legs. Pay the Gambinos, i.e., get the license, and you'll be better off for the time being. The Gambinos always wanted more money in time. They know you pay and they'll squeeze you for more. Some day, the Feds will not allow you to have a license. Then you must make the decision to be legal or not. But until that time, your freedom (I use that term loosely) is better assured if you're legal.

First Things First

I never knew how important training was... until I was properly trained.

Before I could spell gun (I'm a recovering public school graduate), I had some. I didn't know how to shoot most of them, I didn't know how to load most of them, but I did know that the freedom to purchase them was dwindling. My answer was to buy now and ask questions later.

I thought I was fine. But I had a fear of them basically. My wife really had a fear of them and of me having them. I was afraid to shoot any of them so I never did.


We decided to take a gun class. It lasted an entire afternoon. It was a general introduction to pistols class. We finished the class knowing so much more than we knew before! We shot our first shots in that class. We built confidence. We learned safety rules. We were ready to defend ourselves. We thought.

That was 5 years ago. Our weapons sat in storage (we wouldn't keep most of them where we live, that would be long-term foolish for many reasons). Of the two we kept close by, we knew we could fire them when and if needed.

We never shot them. We never practiced with them. Not one time since that afternoon class. We could not quote one safety rule and we could not remember one thing we learned in that afternoon class. In a way, we were worse off than before because we were probably cockier than we would have been before that afternoon session.

Early this year, I read a newsletter by Dr. Arthur Robinson, a man I completely respect and admire, a man who perhaps furthers science more than any other scientist in the United States because he refuses all government money and the ties that go with it. Dr. Robinson created the #2 or #3 best-selling homeschool curriculum in the country (therefore the world).


In his monthly newsletter typically devoted to science but often the world in general and social issues too, Dr. Robinson recommended a 6-day gun class designed by and taught in the manner of Colonel Jeff Cooper. Col. Cooper was the man responsible for changing our military and law enforcement officials shooting style; instead of shooting from the hip the way Matt Dillon shoots, Col. Cooper showed that accuracy was far better achieved at a time cost of only about 1/8th of a second, by shooting straight out with your eye aligned with your front sights aligned with your target. One shot well-placed is infinitely better in a gun battle than 9 rounds that miss.

We did not want to spend the $1,000 each for the training which also needed for us to stay in a lodge on the property (more expense) to be there for everything.

Then, a month or so later, Dr. Gary North wrote a strong suggestion that anybody who cherished freedom needed to take an immersion course, 5–6 days, taught in the style of Col. Cooper. I suppose we could make more excuses, but when Dr. Robinson and Dr. North prescribe the same medicine, it's in our best interest to swallow the pills.

We signed up.

The class met its goal of being full immersion for 6-days. It began with, "This is a gun," and it always went all day and often into the evenings. On the sixth day you learn to clear a house of bad guys single-handedly sprinkled with good guys and hostages all throughout. It's intense and you are exhausted once it's over.

The class would have been a bargain at $10,000. Each.

After 6 days, as opposed to one afternoon, you have the proper safety procedures ingrained into your mind. You have the proper stance, sight picture, and shooting methods ingrained into your mind. You have gone through up to 1,000 rounds in those 6 days. You know your weapon, how to carry it, how to clean it, and how to use it.

The only thing you don't have is muscle memory. Your job once such a class is over is to practice, daily ("dry practice" unloaded) and 2–3 times a week with ammo at your range. 5 to 15 minutes daily is all you need. The goal is to train your body, your "muscle memory," to react when required; in a situation that warrants such action your mind will not be focused on proper procedures to hit your target. As long as you have properly practiced, your muscle memory takes over when needed to do the job you trained for.

Do Everything Needed – NOW

Once properly trained as I've just described, then and only then will you be ready to carry. Time is not on your side. You must get a weapon, you must take the training, you must get the license if you decide that's right for you (it took 81 days for the government to send us ours!), and you must train your muscle memory once you've gone through proper training of your mind.

Both Thunder Ranch and Gunsite teach the proper Col. Cooper methods. If you've heard bad rumors about Gunsite, they used to be true but things have changed. Col. Cooper approves of the new owners. Similar training exists elsewhere. For a complete list, you need to purchase immediately Boston's Gun Bible. Don't get Boston's book first, read it, and then work on the remaining items (get a weapon, sign up for training, apply for concealed license...); instead, get Boston's book WHILE you work on the other issues. As I said earlier, time is against you. Boston's Gun Bible answers every question a wanna-be gunfighter needs answering and it should be next to your other books of importance, read and re-read, then re-read again.

Ask yourself this question: Is the world getting safer or more dangerous? Are public school graduates today less or more selfish and greedy and skill-less than ever before? Are illegal immigrants filling more or less jail space than ever before?

Your answers will help convince you that time is against you every minute you wait.

If your spouse is hesitant, let me tell you about my beautiful bride of 15 years. She's small. She didn't want to take the gun course. She trusted Dr. Robinson's advice but didn't like it. She saw the recommended gun for the class (semi-automatic .45, 1911 style) and it was too big for her to hold.

Yet, she knew she needed to carry given the world we live in. At the end of the first day of class, she was wearing and shooting her full-size Colt .45 semi-automatic and cool as ice. By the end of the 6th day, she took first place in 3 of the 4 shooting competitions in the class of men and women, both older and younger than we were.

I am more careful about ensuring my lady's happiness now that I've seen her shoot.

Choice of Weapon?

Books are filled with which is best. The more concealable your gun is the less powerful it will be. Your gun will never be small enough to conceal and big enough when you need to use it. Guns were made to be comforting, not to be comfortable.

What caliber will stop a crackhead on meth trying to kill your wife? A .22 will if the shot is well-placed. Good luck. I need more stopping power.

A .40-caliber is today's bare minimum self-defense round. Most in the know shoot .45 as their primary self-defense semi-automatic weapon. The .45 is slightly too small for me. I like a .50. That's why I carry the best (only?) .50-caliber semi-auto on the planet, a Guncrafter Industries .50. These are handmade by craftsmen who believe a semi-automatic, when made and used correctly, offer 100% reliability. Yes, 100%. If you want first-class service, ask for Alex (the owner who is readily available for any customer) and tell him I sent you. I get absolutely nothing from the recommendation except the pleasure in knowing I just sent you for the very best self-defense weapon on the planet. This .50 caliber fits in a .45 holster, is the same approximate weight, and adds no discernable recoil over a .45 – unless you're the target.

Children and Guns

Boston's Gun Bible recommends that you gun-proof your child and not child-proof your gun. Once you get your proper training, teach your children the same. The NRA offers an Eddie Eagle program you can follow to develop your child's safe respect and accuracy with a gun as he or she gets older. Yes, the NRA has problems with compromise but you'll still benefit from many of their programs.

The Klinton Administration's Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders, said that toy guns are dangerous. I tend to agree. They teach children bad habits that can kill them (or someone else) later. You need to respect her advice and keep the toy guns out of their hands!

Buy your children real guns instead. Teach them how to handle their weapons safely and accurately. They will know from the beginning that guns are not toys but are weapons to be respected and mastered.

Argument or Action

I come full circle back to the premise. You need to train your mind to grasp the concept of freedom and the importance of self-defense. There's a time and place for honing your debate skills. Very early in life is the best time. Once done, you need more than debate skills. You can only hone those skills on the firing range. Then you deserve to be called a freedom lover.

Not only did Heinlein say that an armed society is a polite society, he also made it clear that you can have freedom or you can have peace but you'll never have both. Which is more important to you? It's very peaceful reading another book by Rothbard on your front lawn. And I recommend that you do so. Right after you clean your weapon from your practice drills.

What are you doing to ensure your family's future safety? Are you reading Atlas Shrugged a ninth time? Or are you loading .45s or .50s into your gun's magazine?

November 20, 2004

Greg Perry [send him mail] may have been born with one leg and a total of three fingers, but don’t call him disabled! He prefers the term "handicapped" because the ADA advocates hate that term. You might wonder how that applies to him because Perry is the most prolific computer book author in the world and just finished his 75th computer book published internationally. He recently fulfilled his long-standing promise to expose the Americans with Disabilities Act by writing the book Disabling America: The Unintended Consequences of the Government’s Protection of the Handicapped.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

If you enjoyed reading about "Don't Bring Ayn Rand to a Gun Fight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ryder
November 20, 2004, 12:52 PM
Interesting read.

I do not believe that toy guns teach kids bad habits unless the parent(s) allow that to be so in which case it is still not the gun's fault anyway, it is the parent's.

My kids didn't get to touch a real gun until after I saw that they could properly handle a toy. They needed very few reminders of the safety rules by age 5 and they began shooting real guns at age 7. Now that they are grown I feel safe around them while they are handling firearms. I still keep an eye on them but have yet to catch them mishandling a real gun.

Toy guns taught them good habits? No, I did.

Chipperman
November 20, 2004, 02:40 PM
He has a total of 3 fingers and shoots a .50?

I'd be interested in seeing how he grips the handgun.

Brian D.
November 20, 2004, 11:22 PM
A good thick Ayn Rand book might stop a bullet or two though, so that might be a good thing to carry in front of you in a gunfight! :p

Zak Smith
November 21, 2004, 12:41 AM
What does this have to do with Rand? Is this in response to something else? Deconstructionist nonsense? Non sequitor?

As I recall, several of Rand's characters went armed.

-z

pax
November 21, 2004, 12:52 AM
Zak ~

Not sure what to make of your question (you did read the article and not just the headline, yes?). The article hardly qualifies as Deconstructionism!

Obviously it is written to libertarians with objectivist leanings. Lot of 'em around, especially online. It's written to a particular type of libertarian with objectivist leanings: the philosopher/reader who would rather read than do. Lots of those around, too, especially online.

The point of the article was to urge those non-doers to get out and do for a change. Well-written, too.

pax

Zak Smith
November 21, 2004, 12:58 AM
I normally expect a thesis statement to show up in the first paragraph and the rest of the essay to back up that thesis statement (ETA: and that the title be a condensed form of that thesis). I mentioned deconstruction because articles in Harper's follow its pattern and flit around - like this article seemingly did.

Justin
November 21, 2004, 01:36 AM
I agree with both Pax and Zak. I got the point about halfway through the article and stopped reading it.

There are a large number of libertarians and Objectivists who, though they have no qualms with private gun ownership, simply are not gun owners themselves. Greg Perry is trying to get them to wake up to the realities of gun ownership.

PaleRyder
November 21, 2004, 07:49 AM
"What are you doing to ensure your family's future safety? Are you reading Atlas Shrugged a ninth time? Or are you loading .45s or .50s into your gun's magazine?"

Well, you could to both.... :evil:

That being said, to me, this posting is great, but at the same time, just plain common sense.

justice4all
November 21, 2004, 09:45 AM
Warning. Do not read further if you have yet to read Atlas Shrugged, as some details of the plot are revealed below.


A true believer in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism should try to live up to the ideal behavior of the heroes she describes in Atlas Shrugged, in much the same way that a true Christian should ask What Would Jesus Do. While John, Fransisco, Hank, and Ragnar were all well-armed with intellectual ammunition, they also proved themselves capable fighters. The title and other portions of the essay suggest to the uninformed that Ayn Rand was some sort of Quaker pacifist turn the other cheek type, which simply is not true. Her characters refused to initiate the use of force, but they were never squeamish about responding in kind. For example, Ragnar was the most feared sea-faring captain of the day; Hank packed heat in his coat pocket as things were getting more crazy at his mills (remember the scene where Ragnar presents him with the gold bar); Fransisco shoots several people during the uprising at Hank's mills; and the band took a few enemy lives when they rescued John from the torture chamber at the end.

In my opinion, we should all be like those heroes in as much as they were willing and able to fight the intellectual batle as long as that was still a possibility, but prepared to take it up a notch when words were no defense.

Don Gwinn
November 21, 2004, 10:20 AM
It's not aimed at shooters who train for self-defense. It's aimed at people who can quote the philosophical theory of Objectivism in detail but are not living it.

This:
There's a point where you must stop honing your argument about your rights and learn how to defend your rights. And that point is always far sooner than you or I think it is.

Is the thesis statement you asked to see, Zak. It appears in the first paragraph.

Hope that helps.

dittos
November 21, 2004, 12:49 PM
Hello Highroad.org members,

I'm new here but I cannot believe highroad.org never crossed my path until I was sent a link yesterday saying my article was reprinted here.

I appreciate your thoughts. I do want to emphasize that I was not putting down Libertarians or Ayn Rand. I hope for most that was clear. I just want us to be able to back up our arguments with action if needed.

Hopefully, action will never be needed and all the time and money we ever spend on self-defense of our family and friends and community is nothing more than a waste of time and money - like the fire insurance you buy but hope you never use. But it's really NOT a waste because it's a fun hobby and it builds your confidence.

Someone posted a question on how I grip the firearm. As long as it's a semi and not a revolver (more powerful than a .22 due to recoil of stronger revolvers), I can draw with my right hand's 2 fingers but to shoot I require both hands. My left hand helps to steady the weapon and I use my left hand's finger to pull the trigger. The semi-auto's beaver tail keeps the recoil under control. I can rack the slide by putting the grip against my sternum and pulling back the slide with both hands. I shoot shotguns and rifles using my right hand for the trigger because I use my left arm as the long gun's barrell rest. It all just works. Never thought much about it, it just works. Just like typing at 45-50 words per min, don't really know how, I never took lessons, I just do it because it needs to be done to say what I need said.

Thanks for your posts and I hope I'm welcome here in the Highroad.org community. It's a pleasure to be here!

Greg Perry

pax
November 21, 2004, 01:12 PM
Greg ~

Welcome to THR! I hope you stick around, post lots, and learn much.

You'll find probably a little less than 3/4 of THR members are conservative, while a little more than 1/4 of us fall somewhere on the libertarian-to-anarchist spectrum (including objectivists). There's the inevitable smattering of true liberals, too -- but in reading the posts, most our liberals come off sounding more libertarian-leaning than statist-leaning. I'm not sure we haven't corrupted them.

Now, about your article: I absolutely disagree with you as to the minimum defensive caliber. But I'm not going to be the one opening the 9mm vs .45 (vs .50??!) debate, uh uh, nosirree, not me...

pax

Hunter's Seventy Seventh Rule: The measure of the menace of a man is not what hardware he carries, but what ideas he believes. -- Hunter

another okie
November 21, 2004, 01:16 PM
I wasn't aware the federal government issued CCW permits. I would have sworn that my two say Oklahoma and Florida, respectively, on them.

PaleRyder
November 21, 2004, 01:34 PM
Well, I'm Libertarian, but I'm not big into Rand. I read Atlas Shrugged and found her constant repeating of stuff to be way over the top. I found it unnessarily lengthy, especially the drawn out soap box speeches. <just my opinion>



I'll stick to historical books and Sherlock Holmes novels.... :)

dittos
November 21, 2004, 02:02 PM
Pax, I also don't want to start a caliber debate... (I know, the fact we say that will do it).

Listen... I'd MUCH rather be missed by a .50 than hit by a 9mm! Use as much a you can handle well and shoot accurately and feel the most confidence with! That can be virtually anything and it's certainly different for many people.

But learn the 4 safety rules of gun handling. Learn to shoot accurately. Be sure of your target and hit what you shoot at; that is the ONLY real important factor in any caliber debate!

And thanks for the make up of the members. I not liberal or conservative or a Libertarian. Of the 3, I am in THEORY more of what a Real Conservative would say he or she is (which is about ZERO Republicans in offce are, especially national office), in REALITY more Libertarian than not. About the only thing I AM for certain is 100% Christian and that's the label I prefer for myself.

pax
November 21, 2004, 02:59 PM
dittos ~

Absolutely agree.

Let me add, too, that professional classes -- valuable as they are -- are worth almost nothing if you don't keep practicing afterwards. In addition to regular practice, most folks need a tune-up class every year or two to retain whatever level of skill they gained in class. For the skill level to advance, it takes even more than that.

Shooting skills are perishable, but regular practice is a good preservative.

Here's a link (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=74078) to my thoughts about the caliber & equipment wars, in poetic form.

pax

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid
Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.
"Good", said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
"But Iron, Cold Iron, is the master of them all!"
-- Rudyard Kipling

Linux&Gun Guy
November 21, 2004, 04:54 PM
I think its a great artical but I have to wonder about this "crackhead on meth"; crackheads by defantition smoke crack not meth :D

dittos
November 21, 2004, 04:59 PM
I know absolutely nothing about either crack OR meth.

I do SUSPECT that users of such as not strict connoisseurs of whatever product they consume. Therefore, see, out of ignorance, I'd ASSUME someone on crack wouldn't be extremely careful about ensuring that the next thing put into his system would be nothing more than pure, 100%, clean, purified, meth-free crack.

But that's just my assumption I make out of ignorance! In my ignorance, I'd assume that the reality is he'd take ANYthing and EVERYthing that's offered or within reach.

Having said all THAT, I'm fairly sure it's not extremely relevant. But I do want full accuracy in all that I write, so thanks!

Standing Wolf
November 21, 2004, 05:31 PM
Well, I'm Libertarian, but I'm not big into Rand. I read Atlas Shrugged and found her constant repeating of stuff to be way over the top. I found it unnessarily lengthy, especially the drawn out soap box speeches.

I've never understood how such a brilliant thinker could be such a truly terrible writer.

PromptCritical
November 21, 2004, 06:23 PM
I thought she did quite well considering she was born in Russia and came to America when she was something like 21. Probably explains why she absolutely hates communist, socialist, marxist thought.

BigG
November 22, 2004, 09:51 AM
I think it's important to recognize the theoretical side has limitations and that practical action must sometimes be undertaken. Philosophy as a be all and end all has its limits. ;)

PaleRyder
November 22, 2004, 10:35 AM
I guess being foreign born should be worth some consideration when evaluating Rand's writing.
Nonetheless, I won't read AS again.

ThreadKiller
November 22, 2004, 10:55 AM
Been to Thunder Ranch and actively read Ayn Rand. Rand does not have the best writing style I've ever come across (make mine Hemingway please) but her message more than makes up for that.

Don't know where I fall in the political spectrum nowadays (the lines are so blurred) but I generally respond when called a "conservative."

Frankly I consider myself more in line with the rag tag and thoroughly disjointed "mind your own damn business" party :)

Tim

BigG
November 22, 2004, 11:08 AM
A Reader's Digest condensed version of Atlas Shrugged or any of Ayn Rand's novels would run, oh, a page or two, so don't expect they will bring out a hardcover edition. Nonetheless, that page would contain some very important information. Ayn Rand is the most influential philosopher to appear in several centuries - and also one of the worst writers! :uhoh:

PaleRyder
November 22, 2004, 11:10 AM
Well, as I said, I am Libertarian, so I'm a member of the Mind your Own business crowd.
I just don't need Rand to explain it for me. I can get a condensed version of her reasoning from L. Neil Smith, who I feel is a much better writer.

BigG
November 22, 2004, 11:16 AM
I don't think Ayn Rand was a libertarian, as much as y'all would like to claim her. ;) She was pragmatic: how much she was willing to cede to the gomt was everything if it was necessary, nothing if it were not. I never heard a libertarian make sounds even close to that. More like the nothing part, scr3w everybody except my sacred cow, etc.

PaleRyder
November 22, 2004, 11:33 AM
Since the LP wasn't formed until around 30 years ago, you're probably right. I have no idea when Rand died.

The Rabbi
November 22, 2004, 01:07 PM
Maybe people should be made to demonstrate competance before they can write articles. This one was horrible. I'll admit at the outset that I never read Ayn Rand and have no interest in doing so.
But what is one to make of an article filled with so many dogmas cavalierly thrown out like breadcrumbs to pigeons? What to make of someone who seems to have violated all rules of commonsense? What to make of someone who cannot get basic information correct. The Surgeon General was Joycelyn Elders, not Jocelyn. Did all law enforcement people really just shoot from the hip like Matt Dillon until Jeff Cooper came along? Somehow I think Fairbairn and Col Applegate might take exception to that. If he cant get this right what makes anything else here worth reading? Stuff like this makes me cringe. :cuss:

Justin
November 22, 2004, 01:20 PM
Rand died in the late 1980's, IIRC.

She was pragmatic: how much she was willing to cede to the gomt was everything if it was necessary, nothing if it were not.

Care to explain?

I suppose you could say that she wasn't a free-market anarchist, but more in line with the thought that humans institute governments in order to protect individual freedoms and the rights of people to go about their own business.

If her philosophy were open to cedeing everything to the government, and hence a centralized economy, then she would have been a socialist, not an Objectivist.

In other words, it's a bit like saying that if the sky were a different color, then it wouldn't be blue.

BigG
November 22, 2004, 01:24 PM
Rand felt in time of war you get off the objective individualist (or whatever) pedestal, kick the other fellow's a$$, then get back on with your objectivism. Has nothing to do with centralized Economy. You'd never hear Ayn Rand slandering the President during time of war, like the libs and dems do now.

BJPARKER
November 22, 2004, 02:04 PM
Welcome Sir to the Forum! I stand to learn alot from you if I pay attention. Thank you for the thread. As a young woman in the 60's, I had done my share of rebelling, then under my immigrant parent's auspices, I groomed myself for wifehood and motherhood, and the dependance on a husband to make my life complete. I began reading AR and the little by little my brain finally began to get a clue about personal responsibility. While AR is somewhat less than articulate, she, as well as others all contribute to making us think about our responsibilities living in this great country of ours, and what will be a personal philosophy to govern our actions. I still learn by serendipity and personal tribulation alot of the time. But I'm becoming a little more conscious and critical in this learning; call me a late bloomer, whatever. Being a CCW gunowner requires learning the basics, and practicing and developing the daytoday awareness.

Mr. Clark
November 22, 2004, 02:28 PM
Ayn Rand referred to Libertarians as "hippies of the right".

There is no need to get off the Objectivist pedestal, kick some @s, then get back on. This implies hypocrisy. The two are completely compatible (Objectivism and kicking @ss,that is).

SAG0282
November 22, 2004, 02:39 PM
Decent article, but I vigorously disagree with this passage;

A .40-caliber is today's bare minimum self-defense round.

I'll stick with my 9x19 thanks. :)

BigG
November 22, 2004, 02:40 PM
OK, Mr. Clark, I probably botched the details but I got her intent right. ;) She did believe some causes are worth getting involved in, probably as a function of enlightened self interest in a broader sense than most libs, who, from their postings I've read seem to view any kind of cooperative action a sell-out. Hey, that does sound like hippies! :D . :neener:

BigG
November 22, 2004, 03:18 PM
Ayn Rand + 80 percent taxes (http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/041026-hospers-caseforbush.php)

Excerpt:
National defense is always expensive, and Bush has been widely excoriated for these expenditures. But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a party I attended in l962, in response to complaints that "taxes are too high" (then 20%), "Pay 80% if you need it for defense." It is not the amount but the purpose served that decides what is "too much." And the purpose here is the continuation of civilized life on earth in the face of vastly increased threats to its existence.

Michigander
November 22, 2004, 07:31 PM
Perhaps Mr. Perry was also trying to reach people like me.

People who want to own and carry a handgun(s) but find it quite difficult to bring themselves to pay the "hush money" to the gubmint and "humbly" ask for "permission" to exercise their God given "right" to self-defense and their supposibly constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms without "infringement".

Mr. Perry's article gave me pause for thought in favor of jumping through the hoops, putting on the dog and pony show and laying down another tax every couple of years in order to exercise my "right" all the while knowing I'll be on their "role" if (when?) the time comes.

If I consent to all this, does it imply approval? If I submit, does it imply that I agree that owning a handgun is not my right?

The Rabbi
November 22, 2004, 07:36 PM
I think I know what will make you feel better and ease your mind. Try this link:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html :evil:

pax
November 22, 2004, 08:01 PM
Wow, tough crowd.

Considering that Ayn Rand is dead, she's probably not going to be offended by all the folks slamming her works.

On the other hand, the fellow who wrote this article is very much alive, and is a new THR member. I do wish folks criticizing the article will keep that in mind. :uhoh: (BTW, Greg, if the rudeness of the criticism bothers you -- keep in mind, you're in good company. They hate Rand, too...)

Personally, I think Atlas Shrugged was very well written. And while I was annoyed by the long speeches, I didn't find them poorly done. Frankly I think the short attention span of most Americans is one of the things that has gotten us into a lot of political messes we could better have avoided.

If I consent to all this, does it imply approval? If I submit, does it imply that I agree that owning a handgun is not my right?
Michigander ~

If you just quietly carry without telling anyone, you'll be able to protect yourself, but the political message you send is ... nothing. A big blank.

Politicians respect numbers. I got my CCW partly because I wanted to be "on a list." I wanted any politician in my state who looked it up, to see that there are a heckuva lot of constituents who are interested in self defense. Those guys aren't interested in much except getting re-elected; I want the number of gun owners in my state to be so obvious and overwhelming to my politicians that none of them would touch the issue with a ten foot pole.

I can understand how signing up to exercise a basic human right feels like compromising on the RKBA, but I don't think it really is.

pax

A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them. – P. J. O'Rourke

Michigander
November 22, 2004, 08:50 PM
I can understand how signing up to exercise a basic human right feels like compromising on the RKBA, but I don't think it really is.

How can being required to ask permission to purchase a handgun possibly not be construed to be an infringement?

I do not want to get too far off the subject, and I think Mr. Perry's article arguably is a good one, but this is where I am stuck. If I am reading Mr. Perry's article correctly, he seems to imply that if one is not willing to carry "legally," then carrying "illegally" is an option. I'm not sure at this point which is worse: a) agreeing that I need permission from my gubmint to purchase a handgun or b) purchasing a handgun "on the streets."

I've read many a post here at THR and I know that many would say they would carry regardless of the "law" and some have even said they carry without following the "law." Some say, "better judged by 12, than carried by six," and I understand the logic in the slogan, but I guess I'm one of those complacent ones who, unless and until I feel or sense the threats that are around me, I won't make up my mind. Of course it may be too late by then, and I realize that.

But darn it!!! WHY DO I HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION TO PURCHASE A HANDGUN???!!!

Perhaps my tomestone will read, "Here lies Michigander... If only he would have asked permission..."

The Rabbi
November 22, 2004, 09:12 PM
How can being required to ask permission to purchase a handgun possibly not be construed to be an infringement?

By that logic you shouldnt vote either since you have to register first. :banghead:

Michigander
November 22, 2004, 09:20 PM
By that logic you shouldnt vote either since you have to register first.

How so? Nowhere in the Constitution have I read that my right to vote "shall not be infringed." I have read exactly that concerning my right to keep and bear arms.

pax
November 22, 2004, 09:36 PM
Michigander ~

You bring up a lot of really good points, probably enough to start another thread. But what the heck, let's talk about it in this one and see if we can't bring it back to Greg's article -- the original subject -- from time to time. ;)

How can being required to ask permission to purchase a handgun possibly not be construed to be an infringement?
Oh, it's an infringement all right. Absolutely no argument there. To "infringe" means to nibble away at the edges of something, and there's no doubt that requiring bribe money, fingerprints, and plain old hassle is nibbling away at the fundamental right to own and to carry around weaponry.

I don't think Mr. Perry implied anything else, and I certainly hope I did not.
I do not want to get too far off the subject, and I think Mr. Perry's article arguably is a good one, but this is where I am stuck. If I am reading Mr. Perry's article correctly, he seems to imply that if one is not willing to carry "legally," then carrying "illegally" is an option.
Yep, he sure did imply that.

The third option he implied is simply not to carry at all. That would be "bringing Ayn Rand to a gunfight," in his words -- that is, having all the philosophical underpinnings of armed self-defense, but being completely unable to practice it.

What's the use of proudly proclaiming, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed!" when you don't have arms anyway, or won't carry them unless the world is perfect? If the world were perfect, we wouldn't need arms in any case.
I'm not sure at this point which is worse: a) agreeing that I need permission from my gubmint to purchase a handgun or b) purchasing a handgun "on the streets."
Actually, I think walking around unarmed is worse. But that's just me.

How are you planning to assert that you do have the right to defend yourself, if not by either putting your name on a list of gunowners or by having arms for your own defense? Will anyone except us on THR ever hear that you believe the RKBA should not be infringed? If so, how?

I had a chance to interview Massad Ayoob for a magazine article earlier this fall. I asked him about the old line, "Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six."

Ayoob looked me in the eye and said, "That's the first step. First we get you out of the hands of the six pallbearers. Then we need to get you out of the hands of the twelve jurors. You want to keep the rest of your life, too – watching your kids grow up, sleeping with your spouse, driving your nice car and living in your warm house in a good neighborhood. We want you to keep all of it. An 8 by 12 cell isn't much of a life."

Seems to me that if a man wants to defend himself, he needs to take care of both sides of that equation ... the pallbearers and the jurors.

pax

ThreadKiller
November 22, 2004, 11:12 PM
Pax, where do you get your wonderful and right to the point quotes? Tell me, is your source a great big high tonnage book of quotes or are you so well read and such a brainiac that you can reel them off the top of your head at a moment's notice? :)

Inquiring minds want to know.

Tim

pax
November 22, 2004, 11:20 PM
Threadkiller ~

I began collecting quotes almost as soon as I learned how to read -- no lie. When I was little I kept 'em in a handwritten notebook, but by the time I reached college I'd typed 'em into a computer file (originally in WordStar, and then in WordPerfect... ah, the good old days).

These days, the computer file is in MS Word format, 12 pt font, with lots of internal links and subcategories. It's up to around 450 pages now, but I can usually put my finger on what I need just because I've been adding to it for so long that I pretty well know what's there.

pax

I always have a quotation for everything -- it saves original thinking. -- Dorothy L. Sayers

ThreadKiller
November 22, 2004, 11:50 PM
Shoulda known. :) I salute your organizational skills!

What a good thing Adam had - when he said a good thing, he knew nobody had said it before. - Mark Twain

Tim

Michigander
November 23, 2004, 01:38 AM
Ayoob looked me in the eye and said, "That's the first step. First we get you out of the hands of the six pallbearers. Then we need to get you out of the hands of the twelve jurors. You want to keep the rest of your life, too – watching your kids grow up, sleeping with your spouse, driving your nice car and living in your warm house in a good neighborhood. We want you to keep all of it. An 8 by 12 cell isn't much of a life."

Well pax, between you, Ayoob and Mr. Perry, my mind has been inched ever so much closer to going through all the BS and purchasing, training, practicing and carrying. I'm not exactly there yet, but Ayoob's words really resonate...

side note: pax, would you, could you, will you, ever publish a copy of your quote collection, either online or onpaper?

DRZinn
November 23, 2004, 12:14 PM
Good idea. Pax?

pax
November 23, 2004, 08:20 PM
:cool:

Thanks for the kind words, guys.

Odds are, I'll never publish my quotes file simply because I've been collecting 'em for so long. While the more recently-added quotes have traceable citations (mostly... :uhoh: ) the older ones do not. Chasing them down and verifying them well enough to justify publication would be more work than I care to contemplate!

And I'm not willing to put up yet another error-riddled "quotes" page on the internet. No matter how good the good stuff is, I know I've got apocryphal quotes contaminating the file and don't want to be responsible for either weeding it out or spreading it further.

pax

A little leaven, leavens the whole loaf. -- the Bible

The Rabbi
November 23, 2004, 09:35 PM
Most in the know shoot .45 as their primary self-defense semi-automatic weapon. The .45 is slightly too small for me. I like a .50. That's why I carry the best (only?) .50-caliber semi-auto on the planet, a Guncrafter Industries .50. These are handmade by craftsmen who believe a semi-automatic, when made and used correctly, offer 100% reliability. Yes, 100%.

Sorry, I have to carp more here. I was curious what a .50 caliber might be: 50AE, 500 Magnum, 50 BMG in pistol form? So I went to the web site and took a quick look.
What we have is the ".50GI" (which does not stand for gastrointestinal tract altho maybe it should). The 50GI is a proprietary cartridge made specially for and usable only in this gun. It is usually a 300gr bullet doing about 750 fps. Can anyone explain why this is preferable to a .45acp? The best part of it is the cost: $14.25 a box, of 20. I guess it has a high "GW" factor but thats about it. At that price I dont know too many people who could afford to go out and blow 100 rounds at the range every week or so. You can buy the .45acp adapter and use .45acp. Why? I dont see anything here that couldnt be done better by the .45acp and if you really wanted it, by the 10mm. I would be hard pressed to think of a worse choice in gun in a major caliber.

Gifted
November 25, 2004, 12:38 AM
It's an adapted 1911. The rim on the cartridge is even the same as a .45 ACP, just the diameter of the cartridge. I've always thought one would make a cool carry gun, but the "save yourself from the jury("of course he was out to kill someone! Why else carry that hand cannon?")" part and the fact that they are hand made at about $5000 apiece is a turnoff.

zastros
November 25, 2004, 01:45 AM
I apologize for losing the credits. got it off the 'net somewhere.
zastros

THE ABRIDGED ATLAS SHRUGGED
02.19.2001
"It sure is hard to find good men now-a-days. I wonder what the hell is going on," Dagny smirked to herself as she entered the towering monolith to capitalism that was the headquarters of Taggart Transcontinental. "There are so few men like Hank Rearden, the man who single handedly invented a new greenish tint metal that is far stronger than steel," she said bursting in on her brother. "There are too many like you, Jim," she mocked.
"Well, if that's the case, you so-not-a-woman-and-I-can't-believe-a-woman-wrote-this, why don't you go redeem yourself by sleeping with him. By being his servile little mistress you'll serve the cause of capitalism far better than you have," Jim mocked.
Dagny smirked in her mocking way. Yes, she thought, she had tried that with another man, and it seemed so right until he, gasp, went to the other side. He became a slacker. Hank. Hank, Hank, Hank. Don't you know you're all I dream about though I don't actually do anything about until page five-hundred? "I know what I want Jim, but what do you want?"
"Who is John Galt?"
"Don't say that! It's people asking that question that leads me to believe something sinister is happening in society. I think he's the destroyer." She mocked herself silently inside. How could a grown woman think such a thing? Oh, who was she kidding? She knew that women weren't much better than children anyway. Everyone knew that. It was a fluke she had any position in the railroad at all.
"It is I, Francisco d'Anconia, of the oldest most wealthy copper fortune this side of the Atlantic, and don't I want you to know that I'm pi$$ing it all away for a grand reason that I won't tell you!" His perfect physique burst through the door in a mocking manner few could achieve but which he achieved perfectly. He had seen someone do the act before and fail and, after a single try at six months old, was better at mockingly bursting through doors than anyone on the planet.
"Slacker," Dagny screamed with indignation and a pointed finger.
"Yes Dagny, you silly silly woman, I may seem a slacker to you, but after ten pages of explanation you will know that it is you who slack and it is I who serve a higher cause which will not be explained for another seven hundred pages. Remember, I am a d'Anconia which goes without saying that I know what I am doing," he mocked. He was so perfect at mocking. No man mocked like Francisco. How she wanted to be back in his arms. Were it not for… no! He was a slacker! The very embodiment of slack yet… yet he slacked with purpose. Even that was perfect. No man slacked like Francisco.
"What in capitalism's name is going on here," Hank yelled with bursting anger from the bottom of his manly lungs as he lunged through the door. It wasn't as perfect as Francisco's mockery, no man could touch that, but it was with the kind of power only a capitalist could muster. Dagny fluttered with lust.
"What the hell are you all doing in my office," Jim demanded weekly, the way only a socialist could demand.
"Hank, we must talk," Francisco said in a softly mocking way. Hank's heart fluttered with love he suddenly felt for the man. Even if he was a slacker, could my heart be wrong, Hank asked himself. He reached for Francisco's hand, wanting to hold him close.
"No," Dagny screamed with indignation and a pointed finger. "Please, I want him to take me and show me what a week little girl I really am! That's what all women want!" Hank looked torn.
"Hey everybody," said a quiet voice from behind Hank. Hank took up most of the doorway with his manly capitalistic bulk. The crowd parted like the sea and a well groomed handsome man with a shock of boyish blond hair stood at the foot of it.
"John, you're not supposed to show up for eight-hundred more pages," Francisco said mockingly.
"Well, I got bored with the wait and figured what the hell. So… who wants to know what this is all about?" John smiled and every man's heart in the room melted. Dagny felt the overwhelming urge to become his servant and to clean up after him. That's what all women wanted after all, she figured.
"I do," Rearden capitalisticly demanded.
"Well, I couldn't deal with any government intervention in business and thought that any kind of socialist tendency was kind of a bad idea, so me and my buddies, who all just happen to be the rich, powerful, and industrial, went on strike to bring the world to its knees." John said it has he tossed back his blond hair with a light twitch of his head.
"For what purpose," Jim nearly cried. Socialists are such babies, thought John mockingly.
"Well, I don't like having to pay taxes or think about anything other than business. And, because I'm such an inexplicably charismatic guy, I figured I'd just my industrialist guys to back me," John said with a hint of mockery.
"Look," Jim sobbed. "The world is crumbling without you guys!"
"Well, once it's toast, we'll get to work but until then, who's up for some skiing in Colorado?"

If you enjoyed reading about "Don't Bring Ayn Rand to a Gun Fight" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!