I was thinking exactly the same thing.

It take a wealthy man to fight City Hall. Roll within the lines in this crapshoot or take your chances outside. Seems a bit odd that here in the US with 50 states, or is it 58 according to BHO, that you can move from one to another and be either legal or a criminal.

I do get this is a different question. My answer was simply to explain the reason I conclude that she wouldn't be against weapons of any kind unless used offensively.

I agree with your other comments in this tread. You appear to have a greater knowledge of Ayn than I do but believe we both draw the same conclusions.

Like the ranch rifle too. I have the similar, semi, Mini30. Big Ruger fan. Was rooting for them against Sig for the Military pistol, but that was a rigged competition. Wouldn't use an AR for (inside) home defense either. I like the 590, KS7, or a pistol for inside.

MA made ARs largely illegal too, but grandfathered the old ones and magazines. What was the military's line on AR lubrication?

I have one Colt, and I will never buy from that company again. Colt was twice run by retired military generals. Each time they took a decidedly anti-civilian stance...looking down their noses at use as if we are lesser. The first was an AR seer-block such that an auto seer could not be installed. It was attached a couple of ways, always with blind hardened pins. This would be ok, but it also would not allow the upper to be closed if it had a MilSpec bolt in it (like virtually all modern bolts). Therefore, my preban wouldn't function with any upper except the original Colt A2-style upper. Guess what General-shmuck-boy? A couple of hours with a Dremel and cut-off tool, and that POS you put in my lower, is in a bag marked "_uck Colt". After reading more of the history of that company, I will never buy from them again until they go the way of Remington, and are bought by an American.

I taught hundreds of recruits how to handle, maintain and shoot the Colt AR 15 but I never owned or wanted one. Nice guns for sure and super reliable but not my style. I have bolts, levers and other SAs for various hunting types but here in NY this communist government is looking for any reason they could find to rip my rights to own any guns away. ARs are banned. High Cap mags are banned. So far only my Ranch rifle remains legal in that category. In my world my 12 gauge serves as home defense and will make an even bigger mess.

I am right there with you, having owned just as many. You did ready my precondition, right?

AR should stand for America's Rifle given how many, simple, ergonomic, widely used and customizable they are now. However, I prefer mine in 7.62x39. Think that round is superior to 5.56x45 for most uses. Just finished building a side-charging upper for one.

Specifically from the Google Bible:
Q: What’s your attitude toward gun control?

A1: I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it is 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, non-criminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It is not an important issue, unless you’re ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn’t very practical. [Ford Hall Forum, 1971]

A2: It is a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people — they are not carried for hunting animals — and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don’t know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim. [Ford Hall Forum, 1973]

In over 55 years of adult life I bet I have owned well over 100 guns and not a single one of them has ever harmed another human while in my posession. I don't care if I had owned a single shot 22 or a full auto 50 cal submachine gun nothing would have changed. It's not the gun but the character of the person behind it. AR= Armalite Rifle and has nothing to do with Assault. My deer rifle or .22 plinker is just as deadly in the wrong hands and these libetards refuse to acknowledge the facts so they will instead ban them all except for the ones that protect them and their families. I won't allow them a single inch!

That is an interesting take. Not saying it is wrong, but it will leave those who pursue it with a tough choice at some point, when "they" who are willing cave to the easy choice.

That last part is a real issue!

Hank Reardan had a gun in his pocket the night he met Ragnar D.

One would think with importance of property rights that what one owns should not matter nor be controlled by another. Property rights can not exist if there is no tool or process to keep them.

Use of guns isn't all bad!

If the elected elite hate guns they haven't seen some LEO doing life saving things. My x2 was alerted by 2 young San Antonio officers when a lady was frozen on the entry to her condo by a very large rattlesnake. My X2 shot his head off without a ricochet on the concrete. The youngsters were terribly impressed. 20 yrs in the Army helps a lot.

ANY "legislation" that violates the Constitution IS NOT LAW AND NEED NOT BE OBEYED.

Problem is .... "they" are move willing to use their guns than are we.

Agreed. It's a problem for me. It was my take on Ragnar.

Rand did a good job Painting it as him destroying property that was WRONGFULLY taken from others, who would probably prefer their property be destroyed (at least that was my read on her justification, and it's been a decade since my last read through).

And before 2020, I hated the thought of it, TBH. But after witnessing the depth of corruption in our government. I am not sure they deserve any quarter or consideration, as they have shown there is no equal protection. Flynn did nothing, and had to get a pardon. A Lawyer LIED, and he gets community service?

That is typically where the discussion has to go.

I'm hoping the present admin passes something clearly overreaching (like the present House Bill) and SCOTUS sets a precedent flipping the whole thing. Otherwise the erosion is going to continue. Appointing the last SCOTUS justice, may be the only thing left pretty soon. Oh, and if that happens, expect Congress to begin proceedings to impeach a couple of judges, which will then be a basis for going against the precedent.

2022 is the whole domestic game now, unless Gulching.

If anything is "reasonable" .... then everything is (eventually) "reasonable".
What part of "shall not be infringed" does anyone fail to comprehend??
NFA, especially, is a violation of the Constitution.

You would think that Rand supported private gun ownership, but when someone asked her about it at a Ford Hall Forum speech (early 70s, I forget the exact year), she said that since government has a legal monopoly on the use of force, gun control is justified. I was listening on the radio, and couldn't believe what I was hearing.

Justification upon which all terrorism is based.

No doubt she was against offense. This is a different question though.

I'm not sure it is as clear as you assert. Read the link I posted.
https://sellingthesecondamendment.com...

However, she is human, not a god. She can be wrong, and we can disagree. For example, smoking is completely stupid. It killed her.

I am a 2nd Amendment advocate, and understand your position.

We need a better way to ensure we maximize white blood cells (honest people) inside our body (the country), without getting rid of all the white blood cells and believing some external antibiotics (law enforcement) will solve the problem.

In the grand scheme of things, I guess I don't really need firearms for general protection, being over 200 lbs, strong and trained in martial arts. However, 1) almost no one wins a fight without getting at least hit, and 2) against more than one person, or just someone with a knife, the odds get much worse. At some point, I'll be 75, and strength is not going to be on my side. Firearms equalize this significantly, particularly for slighter people like virtually 100% of women.

I would have no issue with "reasonable" restrictions (e.g. tests). However, the gun control lobby is not interested in reasonable. Focus on ARs is a perfect example. They are virtually NEVER used in crime. Therefore, we focus on a fight over unreasonable.

All of this has little to do with what Ayn would've said.

Guns are private property. There are a zillion references to such.

To regulate gun ownership requires force (often a lot of it). She was opposed to the use of violence except in personal defense.

The Atlas Society has an interesting write up on the ideas of gun rights in objectivism:
https://www.atlassociety.org/post/why...