Don't Bring Ayn Rand to a Gun Fight
- Thread starter fedlaw
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.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.
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.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Rand died in the late 1980's, IIRC.
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.
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.
Care to Explain?
Rand felt in time of war you get off the objective individualist (or whatever) pedestal, kick the other fellow's a$$, then get back on with your objectivism. Has nothing to do with centralized Economy. You'd never hear Ayn Rand slandering the President during time of war, like the libs and dems do now.
Rand felt in time of war you get off the objective individualist (or whatever) pedestal, kick the other fellow's a$$, 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.
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.
SAG0282
Member
Decent article, but I vigorously disagree with this passage;
I'll stick with my 9x19 thanks.
I'll stick with my 9x19 thanks.
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! . 
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! . Michigander
Member
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?
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?
I think I know what will make you feel better and ease your mind. Try this link:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
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.
(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 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
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.
(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.
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
Member
pax said:
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..."
Michigander
Member
The Rabbi said:
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.
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.
I don't think Mr. Perry implied anything else, and I certainly hope I did not.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
Quotes?
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, 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
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
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
Member
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
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
Member
pax said:
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
Member
Good idea. Pax?
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...
) 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
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked