Ayn Rand vs Mike Wallace

[VanEasten]

The following just seems odd to me:

I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it's 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, noncriminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It's not an important issue, unless you're ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn't very practical.

Assuming this is an accurate quote (1971), I simply disagree. I think the experience of gun owners in Australia and Canada refutes the notion that registration is no threat to the noncriminal.

At the time of this statement, it seems she simply didn't see the RKBA as particularly important. Perhaps she changed her mind later? Didn't her novels, which some say flesh out her ideas more completely, all pre-date the interviews cited by 30 cal slob?

At least she did clearly state that forbidding guns won't stop criminals from getting them.

 

[Lucky]

She may have simply not expected gov't to be evil and grandiose enough to ever attempt sweeping gun confiscations.

She says right there she hasn't thought about it enough. I'm 100% certain that if she knew what we knew, she'd be strongly against registrations. You can tell from the logic she's using.

Sincerely;

Scott, in Canada, who can't post a list of all my guns because the Federal RCMP police co-operated with a Communist newspaper (Ottawa Citizen) giving them access to the Federal Registry database, to publish where gunowners live and what they have - on the internet, in a searchable database.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/rapidfire/form.html

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/rapidfire/index.html

 

[ReadyontheRight]

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

Recognition of "needs" becomes each person's objective and any individual "abilities" become the commodity distributed - often forcibly.

Oh - You also need a "State" to enforce the above.

Pure evil.

 

[Durruti]

To Gego and Kentak: I'll assume that you both, in good faith, missed my second post. I will admit that my language was a bit sloppy in my first post. Apologies for that. The example that Gego gives reasserts, I believe, exactly what I was saying. Rand believes that you can help others, but only to the extent that it helps yourself. The fundamental motivation is entirely selfish.

Assuming this is an accurate quote (1971), I simply disagree. I think the experience of gun owners in Australia and Canada refutes the notion that registration is no threat to the noncriminal.

Agreed. I still find this rather odd. I'd think that she would view the issue of firearms as an issue of private property. I'm not sure why she's willing to compromise on this issue. As she once said, "in any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win."

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

While I like many of Rand's principles, I am not an Objectivist.

Basically, it like Communism doesn't work for the opposite reason. Mankind is essentially a tribal creature. Deny it by either trying to lump us together or seperate us, and make us individuals will fail. Humans are a unique creature. We can act as individuals, and have rights and responsibilities as individuals. But, we require other humans to fulfill those responsibilities, and to fully take advantage of our rights.

 

[wooderson]

Unless they have actually read her works

Not unless you paid me. Handsomely. Ignoring her 'philosophy,' she was truly one of the worst fiction writers I've encountered.

 

[Titan6]

I just recall reading that book, The Fountainhead, with the architect who blew up a building that he had designed (but that was owned by someone else), because he didn't like how they had changed the design. He was the hero of the book. Seemed like she was advocating some sort of extreme sociopathic narcissism to me.

Close, except sane narcissism is more like it...

Basically, it like Communism doesn't work for the opposite reason. Mankind is essentially a tribal creature. Deny it by either trying to lump us together or seperate us, and make us individuals will fail. Humans are a unique creature. We can act as individuals, and have rights and responsibilities as individuals. But, we require other humans to fulfill those responsibilities, and to fully take advantage of our rights.

Rugged individualism is often misunderstood as "every man for himself". Nothing could be fruther from the truth. Man is a social creature and socialization has led us to be the most successful creature on the planet in the last billion years.

She may have simply not expected gov't to be evil and grandiose enough to ever attempt sweeping gun confiscations.

This was not a real issue until the 1980s. Remember up until 1986 fully automatic weapons were readily available legally in this country. Rand had been in the ground for several years already.

 

[30 cal slob]

the warm barrel of sexy EBR's and pistols does wonders to boost my enlightened self-interest.

 

[VanEasten]

True, the 1986 ban on new machine guns occured after Ayn Rand's death but didn't this only add to the "prohibition through economic means" started by the $200 tax introduced in 1934?

Certainly it seems to me that the sweeping 1968 GCA should have been a rather fresh topic in 1971-1973 when she stated her opinions on gun control in the above cited interviews.

 

[budney]

Ignoring her 'philosophy,' she was truly one of the worst fiction writers I've encountered.

I started both "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead," and quickly lost interest both times. But it was easy to see why Rand makes most of her converts among college-aged males. Nothing resonates more with them than the idea that their difficulties in school are the mark of unrecognized genius.

--Len.

 

[Clint Westwood]

Budney, I had never thought about that before, but it is very true.

 

[Fosbery]

I think Rand just never considered gun control seriously. I am sure if she had a reasoned debate with intelligent anti-gun and pro-gun advocates (jokes about the former being oxymoronic aside) she would come down firmly on the side of the pro-gun. She just never had such a debate.

The important thing is not that she was not a vehement supporter of the RKBA, but that she was freedom loving and averse to government power or control.