"She viewed them both as an instrument of tyranny and freedom". Therein lies the answer! No difference from what it is today. I am a highly trained retired LEO and have maintained a Love/Hate relationship toward guns all of my adult life. Love the ones that are used for their lawful and rightful purpose and hate those used for evil whether in private or government hands. I am very sure AR would agree.

The 'rescue party ' had guns, as did Ragnar. So did Hank.

Let's remember a few things from Atlas Shrugged. Two key scenes speak of men (and in one case, a woman) taking defensive or counteroffensive action with personal firearms. We see that first in the repulsion of the riot at Rearden Steel (and the organization of the defense of the mill by Francisco d'Anconia). We see it again in the rescue of John Galt by the Galt's Gulch Committee on Public Safety (then consisting of Dagny, Hank, Francisco, and Ragnar), with the backing of the Galt's Gulch Air and Land Militia, Ellis Wyatt commanding. Recall also that Galt's Gulch was "not a State of any kind." It was the idealized anarcho-capitalist society ("polity" does not apply here) with a Committee of Public Safety, consisting of the largest stakeholders or their proxies (John Galt as proxy for Midas Mulligan; the rest on their own behalf), and an ad hoc militia. Without the private ownership of firearms, neither thing exists. Therefore Ayn Rand would have upheld the notion of private ownership of firearms, had anyone asked her about it.

Recall also: "Force is appropriate...in retaliation...against those who have initiated its use." No one can apply that force who is not armed.

We have discussed this here before. Others are better at quoting Ayn than me (but you might be in for a long reading assignment rather than a clear answer).

My summary is that she was a supporter in a tangential manner. She viewed them both as an instrument of tyranny and freedom.

https://sellingthesecondamendment.com...

If course she supported gun ownership. Just think about her principles.

Actually, I struggled with the Near Hero status Ragnar (A "terrorist" by definition) was given.

But you realize that if you don't strike at the beast, it will eventually kill everyone before it kills itself!

My take on this, and I have read Atlas Shrugged many times and watched the movies. This degree of violence didn't emerge therefore there was no reason for comment.

I've not seen a direct statement about firearms but I think she was totally against the use of offensive violence. I do believe it is a right of nature to defend one life or the life of family by whatever means necessary. For this purpose the ownership of firearms is necessary and therefore an objectivist standard. My 2 cents.