The Objectivist Position on Gun Control
| Article Index |
|---|
| The Objectivist Position on Gun Control |
| Page 2 |
| Page 3 |
| Page 4 |
| Page 5 |
| Page 6 |
| All Pages |
The Objectivist position on gun rights and gun control is a subject that is strangely quiet. Rand herself said virtually nothing on the issue. Very few of the prominent Objectivists that have followed her have ventured to add much either.
I find this to be a puzzling state of affairs. I personally know many Objectivists are gun owners, and think the issue is important. Indeed most people opposed to tyrannical governments, regardless of their philosophy, view gun ownership as an important right.
Objectivism speaks at great length on the fact that man should "hold his own life as the ultimate value" -The Virtue of Selfishness
According to Objectivism, a value is something that you act to gain or keep. It's not hard to imagine a situation where you would need a gun in order to keep your own life, your own ultimate value. As I previously mentioned, very little detail has been cast on the specifics.
Let's start by seeing exactly what Rand did say. Many of these quotations are pulled from an essay by Richard Lawrence, and I'd like to thank him for doing a lot of the legwork.
In Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden carries a gun to protect himself. "He carried a gun in his pocket, as advised by the policemen of the radio car that patrolled the roads; they had warned him that no road was safe after dark, these days." pg 572
Presumably, this means that Rand thought handgun ownership (rifles and shotguns clearly won't fit in your pocket) should be legal. It's unclear if carrying it depends on police permission though. Should Hank need a CCW license? She doesn't say. The climate in Atlas Shrugged at the time is hardly normal either. We can't infer from this passage if she thinks the practice should be legal at all in times of peace.
Her only reference to the right to bear arms is found on page 306 of Letters of Ayn Rand in a letter to John T. Flynn. "A man has a constitutional right to bear arms."
This gives us some to work with but not much. Firstly, this is in a personal letter, so it is hardly a definitive statement of her philosophical position. Secondly, she says man has a "constitutional" right to bear arms. Is it significant that she didn't simply say "man has a right to bear arms"? Is this strictly an optional legal artifice? When did she ever qualify other rights as being constitutional?
Further the question yields no illumination on what she thinks arms should include. The founders who wrote the constitution clearly intended every type of arm up to and including the most powerful warships of the day. Otherwise the "Letters of Marque" provision in the constitution is meaningless. However, one passing remark which isn't expanded upon, in a personal letter, is hardly a basis to say that Rand agreed with the founders in every aspect.
Rand made frequent mention of guns as a synonym of force. She added that government should have "a monopoly on the legal use of physical force". She also said, "A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control" in The Virtue of Selfishness.
These two quotes could support a limitation on gun rights without much stretching. Again, it's not a very explicit position. The first quote could be interpreted to mean that self defense should be illegal. I don't think it's consistent with her other statements, but I can see the argument.
The second quote is even murkier. The phrase "under objective control" could mean all sorts of things. Perhaps it would include things like concealed carry only being permissible when the police advise you to. Perhaps it means that the government can decide what types of arms are permissible. Perhaps it only means that vigilante justice should be outlawed.
Comments
You either support an individual's right to use a gun to defend himself, or you do not.
Stop ducking the issue, O's!
Curing your ignorance of weaponry, and curbing your irrational, collectivist-generated/perpetuated fear of guns would be a good place to start.
Good work, Scott!
And if you don't support an individual's right to protect his life with the most efficient means possible, how can you claim to support his right to life at all?
RSS feed for comments to this post