Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism and Gun Rights

Rate this topic


TheAllotrope

Recommended Posts

Question for those who know more about the Objectivist position on gun rights: To what extent are such rights protected? Is it legitimate for government to regulate gun ownership, and to what extent? Would a pure capitalist government acknowledge the 2nd Amendment's protections (for hunting, recreation, and self-defense) or oppose it generally (for crime fighting)? Does the qualification that government can use force only in retaliation cover a general gun ban? Initiation of force is criminal, retaliatory force is in the sphere of government, but what about force used in self-defense? Would Objectivist political theorists support gun rights only because the sitting government does not adequately protect people, or would they be supported as generally, or should they be banned altogether? Would Objectivists support them on the principle of Constitutionalism, or would they be ok with repealing the 2nd Amendment?

My thinking is essentially that:

1) Guns are useful for far more than crime, and there are contexts where guns can be used without humans at the receiving end. My folks use them for hunting and recreation often.

2) People have the right to self defense, and the auxiliary right to an appropriate weapon. Government has retaliatory powers, but ultimately cannot be 100% responsible for the safety of every citizen at every moment. Essentially, there are thus 3 instances of force: initiation, defense, and retaliation, used by criminals, victims, and government respectively.

3)Many studies find gun ownership a significant factor in both lowering overall crime rates and improving outcomes for those people who are victims of crimes.

4) If nothing else, guns are useful in the context of militia service - a trained and armed citizenry means far less expense on standing armies, and provides good defense and emergency soldiers should the standing army be insufficient or destroyed

5) Gun owners generally have violated no one's rights. Government banning guns would be an initiation of force. Besides, morality depends on individual free will, not statistics. Banning guns generally is simply "package dealing" that lumps upstanding gun owners with criminals. The appropriate thing to do is go after the criminals, not the guns.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A man has a right to own a gun. Recognition of this should not be called "constitutionalist", the right doesn't come from a constitution that can be changed/ignored - but from man's nature, like all rights.

Your reasoning is good, but the moral argument is most important (individual rights.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person's right to "life" is easily understood as unalienable in that your right to life is not derived from government power. Rather, a just government's power is restrained in recognition of that right.

But additionally, a right to "life" does not mean merely the right to "live". A slave is allowed to live but is deprived of his right to his life. The right to life also includes the right to pursue the goals you choose, the right to the production of those efforts, and the right to protect and defend your life and your production.

So while your arguments about the use of guns are admirable, I would only caution that your arguments do not rest entirely on such a defense. The right to defense is the same as the right to life, and has little to do with hunting, crime statistics or the militia.

And finally, realize that the 2nd amendment does not grant any rights. Repealing the second amendment would (theoretically) not remove anyone's right to keep and bear arms. The amendment says, "...the right of the people.....shall not be infringed". The amendment (like all of our "rights" in the Bill of Rights) is worded to recognize the preexisting condition of our rights, and it's only purpose is to ensure the government's power is limited. Remember that many of the founding fathers didn't think a Bill of Rights was even necessary.

So I think the answer to your question is that Objectivists support gun rights on the basis of unalienable rights and not on what any government is or is not able to do. And that an Objectivist would prefer to keep the 2nd amendment in place only for it's recognition of the limited power of government.

Edited by PatriotResistance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP. The government may however completely ban those weapons and arsenals that are meant not as instruments of self-defense, hunting, or target practice, but war, mass-murder, terror attacks. (such as large bombs, machine guns (not all "automatic weapons", but actual machine-guns, like helicopter-mounted Gatlings), chemical and nuclear weapons.

Also, they may regulate the ownership of handguns, to exclude those who have been found guilty of violent crimes. (not necessarily indefinitely, depending on the crime, but for a longer time than the jail sentence)

What constitutes government abuse, on the other hand, are long and costly procedures potential gun owners have to go through in cities like New York, even just to have a handgun in their own house. Also, there are laws that make people spend a lot of money and effort before getting a carry permit, in many states. Those are abusive too, a lot of silly obstacles like psychological tests, medicals, and in general forcing people to run around various offices to get a huge number of meaningless stamps and signatures, were sneaked into the bureaucratic process by leftist politicians, not to exclude criminals, but to discourage gun ownership in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake,

The government may however completely ban those weapons and arsenals that are meant not as instruments of self-defense, hunting, or target practice, but war, mass-murder, terror attacks. (such as large bombs, machine guns (not all "automatic weapons", but actual machine-guns, like helicopter-mounted Gatlings), chemical and nuclear weapons.

This was my position for many years, but of late I've had doubts and have become undecided. One of the fundamental purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to give citizens the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. What chance does an army of civilian soldiers armed with hand guns have against the might of the U.S. Army, for instance? Or even the Serbian Army? That said, I have strong reservations about public access to weapons of mass destruction, tools whose only purpose is mass death. These do not appear necessary or particularly useful for a revolutionary army engaged in civil war. But combat-level conventional arms, I'm unsure. My "instinct" is to say that the public should be allowed to own them. The only civilians who possess such weapons in America today are dangerous criminals.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the OP. The government may however completely ban those weapons and arsenals that are meant not as instruments of self-defense, hunting, or target practice, but war, mass-murder, terror attacks. (such as large bombs, machine guns (not all "automatic weapons", but actual machine-guns, like helicopter-mounted Gatlings), chemical and nuclear weapons.

Why should anyone but the individual possessing a weapon say what can be used for self-defense? Your reasoning comes across as "it makes me feel uncomfortable". I see nothing -wrong- with purchasing large bombs. If it is not force to possess, why ban it? Because "most people" don't use it as self-defense? Sure using such a weapon is bound to violate someone's rights, but I'm sure you realize how people love to ban things because they *might* violate someone's rights. If someone feels better owning a large bomb in case Venusians invade Earth with their black hole bombs and mind-control machines and ships immune to bullets, fine with me.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should anyone but the individual possessing a weapon say what can be used for self-defense?
It is not a matter for the individual to decide what constitutes a threat -- an initiation of force. That is a matter determined by objective law. Contrast the use of a rifle, which might be used to initiate force but equally well could be used for purposes other than the initiation of force, and the use of a hydrogen bomb, which can only be used for the initiation or force and for retaliation. Neither is a proper action for the individual, in a civilized society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should anyone but the individual possessing a weapon say what can be used for self-defense? Your reasoning comes across as "it makes me feel uncomfortable". I see nothing -wrong- with purchasing large bombs. If it is not force to possess, why ban it? Because "most people" don't use it as self-defense? Sure using such a weapon is bound to violate someone's rights, but I'm sure you realize how people love to ban things because they *might* violate someone's rights. If someone feels better owning a large bomb in case Venusians invade Earth with their black hole bombs and mind-control machines and ships immune to bullets, fine with me.

I do feel uncomfortable when my life is in danger, yes. Allowing civilians to posses weapons that can take out many people at once would put my life in grave danger, since there are plenty of people who would be willing to do precisely that.

But that wasn't my reasoning at all, I never mentioned my comfort level. My reasoning was that weapons of war are useful for war, not self-defense or hunting. Individuals in a civilized society do not have the right to wage war. And if the civilized society is gone, then what does it matter if there are laws against nukes. Go ahead and get them anyway, you're no longer expected to obey the law, while at war with the government or rival gangs, in an anarchy.

I disagree that it is not up to me (or objective laws) to decide what is used for war and what for self-defense (or hunting). Of course it can be determined what weapons should be allowed and what shouldn't be, objectively. You just have to look at what damage they can inflict on a crowd or building, and at what distance. If it does more than even the most extreme requirement for self-defense from criminals, it should be banned from civilian use, except perhaps in licensed facilities where gun enthusiasts can rent them out and play around with them.

The fact that your claim that all weapons can be used for self-defense is false, is further illustrated by your example, in which the only uses you found for these weapons, other than a terror campaign on Americans, by Muslim or right wing lunatics, was stuff that doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What chance does an army of civilian soldiers armed with hand guns have against the might of the U.S. Army, for instance?

If you're planning a war on the US Army, feel free to ignore anti gun laws. You're getting the death penalty for treason long before serving time for owning a machine-gun anyway.

But combat-level conventional arms, I'm unsure. My "instinct" is to say that the public should be allowed to own them. The only civilians who possess such weapons in America today are dangerous criminals.

If you mean AK47's, M16's, sniper rifles, sub machine guns, plenty of civilians have those. And I agree with you that even current restrictions on automatic rifles, and certain types of ammo for these rifles, are abusive.

But if you mean bigger guns, like heavy machine-guns, mortars, ground-to air missiles, tanks, assault helicopters, fighter jets, then I'm not aware of any criminals who have those. If some criminal does get their hands on one, the authorities would be the best equipped to handle that anyway, long before you need to mine your backyard against the crips driving over it with a tank, or install a missile battery to prevent the bloods from gaining aerial dominance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're planning a war on the US Army, feel free to ignore anti gun laws. You're getting the death penalty for treason long before serving time for owning a machine-gun anyway.

If you mean AK47's, M16's, sniper rifles, sub machine guns, plenty of civilians have those. And I agree with you that even current restrictions on automatic rifles, and certain types of ammo for these rifles, are abusive.

But if you mean bigger guns, like heavy machine-guns, mortars, ground-to air missiles, tanks, assault helicopters, fighter jets, then I'm not aware of any criminals who have those. If some criminal does get their hands on one, the authorities would be the best equipped to handle that anyway, long before you need to mine your backyard against the crips driving over it with a tank, or install a missile battery to prevent the bloods from gaining aerial dominance.

Having just watched a show on the Brown Pride in Nashville, it struck me that the truth of the matter was they were mostly killing people with tiny little handguns that can be stashed in one's pants or sweatshirt pocket. By and large gang violence does not occur with large assault rifles or even rifles at all. Now, granted, in incidents where policemen are killed it is more likely that the criminals involved had some heavier firepower, which I can understand then why the police would be concerned. But I guess what I'm saying is that if one is concerned with random violence from criminals, someone breaking into your home is going to kill you with a small handgun or even a baseball bat, not an AR-15. And having a nice shotgun in your home or, in my case, lots and lots of pointy objects can help take care of that problem. So the laws which are seeking to ban larger weapons don't really have anything to do with stemming the lion's share of violent criminal activities (is anyone surprised?).

Honestly, every time I hear about a convenience store owner taking out a robber with a gun behind the counter I want to cheer, because that person just cleaned up the world a little bit. My fiancee had a cousin who was killed at the age of 18 because she was working late at night at a Circle K and some thug shot her in the head during a robbery. Would that it could have been the reverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that your claim that all weapons can be used for self-defense is false, is further illustrated by your example, in which the only uses you found for these weapons, other than a terror campaign on Americans, by Muslim or right wing lunatics, was stuff that doesn't exist.

Yes, I completely understand that there really is no good reason for a civilian possess such extreme weapons as nukes. I just don't see how it necessarily follows that a person simply cannot be allowed to *have* a nuke, for whatever bizarre reason they want. I was only trying to point out that a person may have an irrational reason for wanting something. The person intends to use his bomb *only* for self-defense, even though you and I both know his scenario wouldn't occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the subject is up, I agree with most of what has been said, but I'd like to hear some other thoughts on something somebody elsewhere has been annoyingly bugging me about every so often. This other person seems convinced that Objectivism could not support banning the kinds of weapons that could be used to overpower the government and that some small number of bad people would try to get said weapons for such purposes to overpower a perfectly fine government because they want to go ahead with being evil scoundrels and so blah blah Objectivism's ideal government is a "paper tiger" blah blah. I have said that I think for precisely that reason that such kinds of weapons COULD be banned under a government run under the ideas of Objectivism, that such weapons are not there for protecting rights, but really for supporting the violation of them when in civillian hands. The only issue I see here is a question of how you would then have people able to defend their rights from a government that may go utterly corrupt, especially since if the people with such powers in the government may know the general citizenry has little but numbers against them. So, what of this evident conundrum? How do you keep both bad civilians and bad government from getting to the point it can't well be resisted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I completely understand that there really is no good reason for a civilian possess such extreme weapons as nukes. I just don't see how it necessarily follows that a person simply cannot be allowed to *have* a nuke, for whatever bizarre reason they want. I was only trying to point out that a person may have an irrational reason for wanting something. The person intends to use his bomb *only* for self-defense, even though you and I both know his scenario wouldn't occur.

I can think of at least two "legitimate" or non-force initiating reasons to own a nuke, aside from protecting himself from a tyrannical gorvernment.

A nuke could be used for mining, or for space-ship propulsion.

The principle that needs to be upheld is that the initiation of force is banned, not the ownership of inanimate objects which scare some people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A nuke could be used for mining, or for space-ship propulsion.
The latter is strictly fictitious. I'm highly skeptical about the latter, but if you have any evidence that it is actually possible, you can trot it out. I mean evidence, not the fact that the Russkies tried it and failed.

It's true that if you are persuaded that you live in a North Korea style dictatorship and that your only hope for survival is to nuke the East Coast, then you might stash an H-bomb in your basement. But it wouldn't matter whether it were legal to do so -- you've decided that you don't live in a rational society under the rule of law.

I agree that there is no point in being afraid of an inanimate object. What you should be afraid of is a person's act of acquiring a device that has the potential to destroy millions of lives and billions of dollars of property. If the device doesn't actually have that potential, then there's nothing to be afraid of. In other words, it's the person's threatening act. Whether the act is, objectively, a threat, has to be judged by reference to the facts -- e.g. where it is, how mobile is it, what is its yield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about my poor phrasing, tito & Patriot. I mentioned in point 2 of the OP that people have a right to self defense & the auxiliary right to a weapon. I do agree that it, like all rights, is based on man's nature rather than the Constitution, but I have not been able to find Objectivist commentary on self-defense as opposed to retaliation. Consequently, I was unsure as to whether Objectivism recognizes "the right to bear arms" or would prefer to see that delegated to government (police, military). That was really my whole point in posting. The bit about Constitutionalism was meant to ask, "If Objectivists oppose the principle of private gun ownership, would they still acknowledge the critical importance of rule of law (Constitutionalism, as worded in the OP) and let it lie as an issue, or actively campaign to repeal it?" Subsequent posts indicate to me that my interpretation of gun rights was appropriate.

Dan: I think the issue of civilians fighting the military in a shooting war is trivial, for the simple reason that the military has a vested interest in not hurting the civilians who pay its upkeep. As for non-US military, that's a motivation to stock public arsenals, such as ammo/artillery depots, as was done in the Revolutionary period. Having things like grenades lying around private homes is a bit of a liability (theft, anyone?). Also, from a semantic perspective, guns are arms, whereas missiles, artillery, etc. are more properly described as ordnance, so the 2nd Amendment doesn't technically apply. Plus, as Dave and Jake note, ordnance can't be used for self defense. Imagine trying to use a grenade against a guy holding you at knife point!

While nukes are totally unrelated to the OP, I will bite. For mining, they ought not to be legal for the simple reason that they throw radioactive waste into the environment. I don't know about you, but I like my air alpha-gamma-and-beta-particle free. And I would consider it a violation of my rights to have such a thing around. For spaceship propulsion, one would still need a means to refine the fuel - and since the government does have a strong interest in not letting random folks have weapons-grade fissile material around, I see it as being at least highly regulated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, not following you here:

The bit about Constitutionalism was meant to ask, "If Objectivists oppose the principle of private gun ownership,

They don't oppose gun ownership. So what's the point of asking this?

would they still acknowledge the critical importance of rule of law (Constitutionalism, as worded in the OP) and let it lie as an issue, or actively campaign to repeal it?"

Huh? Let **what** lie as an issue? Campaign to repeal **what*?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't oppose gun ownership. So what's the point of asking this?
It's not self-evident whether they do. The relevant question is whether Rand had a position on gun control; Richard Lawrence did the research here, and as you can see the matter is not trivial. See for example Rand's statement on control of handguns:

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 to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.

Thus it is not a given that Objectivism supports unrestricted weapons ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not self-evident whether they do. The relevant question is whether Rand had a position on gun control; Richard Lawrence did the research here, and as you can see the matter is not trivial. See for example Rand's statement on control of handguns:

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 to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.

Thus it is not a given that Objectivism supports unrestricted weapons ownership.

Thanks for the info.

I disagree. I would never define self-defense to include 'kill at whim'. Those seem to be opposites to me. As her position is that force is never justified unless in response to force initiated by others, I don't see how a person who is defending themselves could ever be accused of 'killing at whim'.

Edited by PatriotResistance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.
With whom or what?
I would never define self-defense to include 'kill at whim'.
Nor did Rand.
As her position is that force is never justified unless in response to force initiated by others, I don't see how a person who is defending themselves could ever be accused of 'killing at whim'.
The problem is how to resolve the apparent contradiction in terms of man's natural right to live free from force. The government must control the use of force, yet it must use force to do so. So clearly we do not want to grant people the privilege to kill; the goal of the government is to absolutely block killings of men by other men. So how exactly do we do this? Even though the unknown ideal of a strictly rational society (populated by only rational men) may be unattainable, it nevertheless defines a standard. So in the direction of that standard, a part of the answer is to define the concept "self defense" legally; another part is simply to prevent killings. What Rand indicated was that it is difficult (from a concrete legal perspective) to frame a principle that will prevent killings, yet generally does not improperly use force against men.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is how to resolve the apparent contradiction in terms of man's natural right to live free from force. The government must control the use of force, yet it must use force to do so. So clearly we do not want to grant people the privilege to kill; the goal of the government is to absolutely block killings of men by other men. So how exactly do we do this? Even though the unknown ideal of a strictly rational society (populated by only rational men) may be unattainable, it nevertheless defines a standard. So in the direction of that standard, a part of the answer is to define the concept "self defense" legally; another part is simply to prevent killings. What Rand indicated was that it is difficult (from a concrete legal perspective) to frame a principle that will prevent killings, yet generally does not improperly use force against men.

Umm, I'm really not following you either. The discussion was about an individual's right of self-defense. If a man breaks into my home and attacks me I have the right of self-defense. I am not required to call 911 (the government) and hope for the best. My goal is to stop that person (self-defense), not to kill them, though they may die as a result of my efforts. AFAIK, that resolves the issue and does NOT give me any kind of 'privilege to kill at whim' or any 'privilege to kill'. There is no contradiction.

As far as the your paragraph above, I don't think it is the goal of government to absolutely block killings of men by other men. The goal of government is to enforce the law to the end of protecting people's rights. A goal of philosophy (Objectivism, etc.) is to stop all killings by convincing everyone to lead moral lives. That is not the government's job. No law or principle that any government can ever invent will prevent all killings (unless by violating rights of freedom, which I suspect, is what you meant by 'improperly use force against men').

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not self-evident whether they do. The relevant question is whether Rand had a position on gun control; Richard Lawrence did the research here, and as you can see the matter is not trivial. See for example Rand's statement on control of handguns:

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 to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.

Thus it is not a given that Objectivism supports unrestricted weapons ownership.

Not to address your point about what Objectivism does or doesn't support, but I perceive handguns primarily as defensive tools. Sure, the advantage of their limited size has been taken by criminals and assassins. However, militaries typically issue infantry rifles and generals handguns. The best killing tool of the individual is an accurate, relatively light weight and high powered rifle, much like the kind people use to hunt big game. Handguns, on the other hand, are carried by leadership as a last resort defense, designed to be worn (not carried). They are limited in power, accuracy and ammo capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...