Rand's comments were correct...considering the fact that she stated that she did not know enough to have an opinion on the issue. It would have been as useful as asking her what she thought of space flight.
In her comments, however, I see a reflection of the attitude of the general public...and for the same reason...a lack of knowledge on the subject.
If debates, on subjects like this, could be restricted to those with extensive insight on the matter, I think we would be far better off. Unfortunately, that's not how you get things to go your way, if you're a Liberal.

I will never register a gun with the very government that I would be protecting myself from.

I wish Obama would just admit he wants a disarmed and sheep-like citizenry so he can do whatever he wants with no one able to object

No doubt you understand that this has nothing to do with terrorism or individual criminals. This has everything to do with protecting criminal government from individuals.

Well, as you should know, the constitution was written by slave-owners and women-haters.

That makes that document pretty much worthless.

(Sarcasm---not my view. And certainly not fact.)

Now I feel so much more protected from law-abiding citizens with big bad guns that ain't PC.
Armed criminals and terrorists? What do they care about some latest scribble made by a weak as tater water law-making dictator with a pen?

We've said it all before, but it is worth saying again. Firearms are our right as guaranteed by the Constitution and no impediment should be placed on obtaining them. That being said, no set of laws or regulations can prevent people from obtaining them for evil intent. Laws and regulation have not prevented people from getting dope, medications, alcohol, or baseball bats. The people who want to destruct, either themselves or others have always been with us. There are adequate laws to deal with them. The problem in the case of Islam is that political correctness prevents us from dealing with them properly. The way the evil people succeed is by turning us into a nation of fools. Eventually, the nation will become "The Marching Morons" of C.M. Kornbluth.

Mike, you bring up several issues that I would like to add my two cents to. Registering the gun. I could see Ayn Rand’s perspective in the 1970’s – the government back then, for all its faults, was not the enemy of the people or the Constitution. Today’s government is. Thus, the trusting this government would be illogical. NICS background checks, by law, are not supposed to permanently store the registration information, but are supposed to be deleted within a few or less than a month. That is the law. Now, the reality – Connecticut, as you may know required, a few years back, that AR-15 rifles be registered. An estimated 10% of the owners complied. Not too long ago, Connecticut Highway Patrol officers started to raid and search homes of the other 90%. How did they know which homes to raid? Seems to me to be a direct evidence of registration in fact preventing one from having the gun.

Defensive gun uses – there are well over 1.5 million defensive gun uses every year in the US. In contrast to a tiny number of tragic accidents, at least 1.5 million people are able to defend themselves every year, many of whom would have been killed, raped or seriously hurt otherwise. In terms of numbers, there is just no comparison.

Suicides – those numbers are so skewed, it not even funny. Recently, I saw a statistic claiming that some 40% of suicides were with a gun. Had the other 60% fared any better? Japan has almost no guns, but the highest suicide rate in the world. The issue is why people chose suicide, not the method of choice.

Lastly, will (or can) privately held guns prevent the establishment of a tyrannical government? No one knows for sure (including people that want to institute a tyrannical government). However, from history, every tyrannical government, in every century and on every continent, has always disarmed the citizens either prior to grabbing control or during. Are rifles a realistic deterrent to today’s tanks? Again, we don’t know. And I would rather err on the side of the unknown then simply surrender.

Correct! and we are never more than one election away from tyranny! Look what we got 7 years ago! It is truly amazing that our country is so resilient that we can absorb the damage Obama has forced on us and still we have not needed to resort to such an upheaval that would have been common place in just about any country in the world.

The framers were brilliant even though their masterpiece, the US Constitution and the Articles of Confederation are under a withering assault by those who hate this country. Come 2017, let's hope we get a real statesman and American patriot in the WH and the same for Congress. Throw all of these bums out!!!

Yeah! But he is hellbent on letting every violent gun criminal out of jail just so they can continue to kill, wound and scare the American population.

Great way to create the environment for his brand of Socialist fascism! He has a plan.....for that you can be sure!

"Elevendy thousand four hundred and nineteen eighty four" infringements on the right to bear arms.

law enforcement cannot protect us during the first 10 minutes
in the "life of a crime," so during that interval we're on our own.
that's the primary reason that self-defense is important, IMHO! -- j
.

He is a big baby, just throwing a tantrum. One does not get angry and yell. One ignores the baby and makes the tantrum irrelevant.

According to liberals the justification for owning a firearm for self defense has passed and we should rely on law enforcement to protect us. When seconds count the police are just minutes away.

Yes!! . the more credence we give him, the more sway he has
with the elections in the fall. -- j
.

WHAT does registering your firearm do other than saying so-and-so owns such-and-such a firearm, and it is at such-and-such an address?

And HOW, pray tell, does that keep a scumbag from using a firearm in a crime?

Registration is a fine tool to increase governmental employment, create bureaucracy, and know which doors to knock on when the "phone and pen" guy signs an executive order deciding such-and-such a characteristic of a firearm (say magazines or hammerless models or those with a pistol grip or thise using firing pins) are now banned?

It still sounds to me that this whole "shall not be infringed" thing is being run roughshod, and trampled thereupon. Silly constitution... right? Who needs things like freedom of speech, religion, etc... especially when Dear Leader can tell you what to say, or which direction Mecca is to face while you mandatorily pray 5x a day...

I won't elaborate on WHY a child kills another... you blame the firearm, rather than the parents who did NOT bring up their children with a respect for life, and a sense of responsibility.

You sound pretty anti gun... which makes me wonder - as a security guard, are YOU armed?

More children drown in bathtubs than die from guns, so should we require all bathtubs be registered and child-proofed? Josef Stalin was famous for the quote,"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic." That quote has been interpreted as a sign of how callous Stalin was, but one might also make the case that we can focus on the cause of a single death, but we lose sight of what caused the greater number of deaths.

Japan has very strict gun ownership laws, but has a significantly higher rate of suicide than we do, so a focus on the mechanism of a suicide detracts from determining the cause behind it. Mental health care is severely lacking today, and a better focus on aid to the mentally troubled would be more effective at reducing suicide than removing one means of committing suicide. Given the circumstances of most of the mass shootings, better access to mental health care would be part of a defense against those incidents as well.

We have a long way to go before the idea of armed revolution becomes even conceivable, but we are never far from a society that becomes overwhelmed by economic collapse. If the institutions of law enforcement become incapable of protecting all of their constituents, then we have a responsibility to be able to protect ourselves and others around us, and firearms provide the strongest protection.

Wonder if this will apply to all the gun sales out of the trunks of cars, and trades for illicit narcotics, to felons otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms... oh wait, never mind... it's the LEGAL gun owners this is meant to inhibit, not those who share a similar viewpoint and commonality to the powers that be... after all, they will NEED the thugs and scumbags to keep the sheep in line and subservient... Not unlike the use of criminals and thugs in a certain central European country in the 1930's to do the same...

Sad to think those thousands that fought and died during WW2 apparently did so in vain, as we are now emulating those we had (at the cost of many lives) vanquished...

Why do I keep thinking, when I hear of the dictatorial actions of the dotgov (like this), of one Cuffy Meigs? Too bad they can't be put at the controls of a project X with all the levers and a bottle of rotgut bourbon in front of them...

Just a jab at the conservatives to rile them up, without correcting any problem that we have evidence of.
The conservatives should open ridicule his behavior as unhelpful, spiteful, illegal, nonsense that it is, and make him out to be a spoiled, narcissist rat (that he is). "Oh, the king is dissatisfied with his dessert, and is throwing food...poor baby"
We should not get upset publicly. It shows we acknowledge his power. We should treat it like a fly to be swatted, and then paint Hillary as the same big baby with the same fascist intentions.

in my opinion, not Rand's, letting the government track
the guns in the nation is dangerous. . it invites their meddling
in the population's self-defense ... against the government. -- j
.

From Ayn Rand Answers: the Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew © 2005 by The Estate of Ayn Rand.
Quote

Q: What is your opinion of gun control laws?

A: 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]

Q: What's your attitude toward gun control?
A: 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]