Objectivism
and Gun Carrying

🔫

Introduction

Gun carrying is usually discussed in panic or tribal slogans.

“Guns are freedom.”
“Guns are violence.”

Objectivism rejects both mysticism and hysteria.

It starts with the core principle of a civilized society:

No one may initiate force against others.

From that single principle flows the meaning of self-defense, law, and the status of weapons.

🧠

The Foundation: Rights and the Ban on Initiating Force

In Objectivism, rights are moral principles defining and protecting an individual’s freedom of action in a social context.

A right is not a permission slip from the state.
It is a boundary line against coercion.

That means:

Force is moral only as retaliation against those who initiate it.

A gun is not “force.”
It is a tool that can be used for force—either criminally (initiation) or justly (retaliation).

🛡️

Self-Defense Is a Moral Right

If you have a right to your life, you have a right to defend it.

A right without the option of defense is a paper abstraction—valid only until the first aggressor appears.

Objectivism recognizes self-defense as a moral necessity in a world where not everyone chooses to live by reason.

The issue, therefore, is not whether self-defense is “nice.”
The issue is whether the victim may act to stop the aggressor.

Objectivism answers: yes—by whatever level of force is objectively necessary to end the threat.

⚖️

Carrying vs Threatening: Context Is Everything

Objectivism draws a sharp distinction between:

— possessing or carrying a weapon
— using it to threaten, intimidate, or initiate force

A peaceful man carrying a weapon is not violating anyone’s rights.
A criminal brandishing it to coerce is.

Rights are not about objects.
They are about actions—specifically, actions that involve coercion.

🏛️

The Proper Role of Government

Government exists to protect rights by banning and retaliating against the initiation of force.

It is not a therapist for society.
It is not a moral nanny.

That same principle applies in other controversial areas of personal freedom, such as Objectivism and Drugs.

A rights-respecting government focuses on objective crimes—assault, robbery, murder—not on treating peaceful citizens as suspects by default.

The standard is simple:

punish the initiation of force, not the capacity for defense.

🧩

The Real Question: Who Is Being Disarmed?

When a state “disarms the public,” it does not erase violence from existence.

It shifts power toward those who will still be armed:

— criminals who ignore laws
— agents of the state who enforce them

Objectivism does not treat government as inherently angelic.
It treats government as an institution that must be strictly limited by objective law.

The danger is not “weapons” in the abstract.
The danger is unaccountable power—whether held by criminals or by the state.

⛓️

Moralizing Weapons Is a Category Error

A gun is not “good” or “evil.”

A gun is a tool.
A mind chooses how to use it.

Objectivism rejects the collectivist habit of blaming objects for moral failures.

Just as capitalism is not “greed” but a system of voluntary trade, gun ownership is not “violence” but a capacity that can be used either justly or unjustly.

Morality belongs to choice—never to inanimate matter.

🚨

Limits: Objective Law, Not Arbitrary Fear

Objectivism is not anarchism.

A free society requires objective rules—clearly defined, evidence-based, and applied through due process.

That means any restrictions must be tied to objective threats and objective crimes—never to vague feelings, political theater, or collective punishment.

The same demand for objectivity appears in questions of state force and punishment, including Objectivism and the Death Penalty: the state must act by proof, not by passion.

🌍

The Deeper Theme: Independence

The ultimate issue behind gun carrying is not metal and mechanics.

It is the moral status of the individual.

Is a rational adult a sovereign being—responsible for his life and capable of defending it?
Or is he a dependent—expected to outsource survival to guardians?

Objectivism chooses sovereignty.

That is why its heroes—whether Howard Roark or John Galt—refuse to live as permission-seekers in any form.

🔍

In One Sentence

Objectivism defends gun carrying as morally permissible when it serves self-defense under objective law—because rights forbid the initiation of force, but they require the freedom to stop it.