Muh Constitution!


Gun rights are in the news again. Some kids who probably can’t even recite the Bill of Rights want to tell me how “a well regulated militia” means only the most consistently violent people in our society should have guns, and some people who probably spent the last few months making excuses why a clown in a cheap toupee doesn’t have to follow the constitution want me to believe they are ardently defending my “god granted right” to own a firearm. I’m just over here like:


First off, I’m a “Constitution of No Authority” guy. That document has never worked in the way it was fact it’s basically a giant rubber stamp for government authority(how’s that for some delicious irony!) Lysander Spooner figured that shit out back in the 1800s, which is why he’s such a boss and generally the GOAT when it comes to liberty.


Spooner and the Constitution
He was also
the most woke postman of all time. Kevin Costner eat your heart out.


So I generally don’t care what Constitutionalists or anti-constitutionalists have to say regarding gun rights since they’re both operating based on the idea that some magic piece of paper says what I can or cannot do. They also change their idea of what this magic piece of paper means depending on what particular issue they’re trying to ram down my throat. They wield the Constitution and its language like some sort of club designed to destroy arguments. They may as well be trying to beat me to death with a foam pool noodle. The Constitution has nothing to do with liberty, even as originally written if we want to pretend we will ever get back to that point.


But that’s outside the scope of this article. Here I’m going to show you that the constitutional argument against guns fails at the very first step. You don’t look at the 2A, you look at the enumerated powers of the legislative branch as found in article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution. That’s the part that says what the government CAN do, if you believe in magic documents(which you have to if you believe in the United States, checkmate both sides of the gun control debate).


Here’s the text of the section for the lazy:


There is no power granted to the federal government to regulate the ownership of firearms. Not a single one. This is a close as it gets:


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.


Now if you’re in the armed forces or a militia I guess you can concede some authority here…but a normal citizen? Nah dawg.There is nothing there about ANY right to regulate what the PEOPLE CHOOSE TO OWN OR POSSESS with their own money. The regulations that have been passed and are being discussed have nothing to do with ARMING, ORGANIZING OR DISCIPLINING the MILITIA. NOTHING.   So where is the authority to limit the peoples’ rights? Using the text of the document and interpreting BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF: NOWHERE. So they don’t have that right. No 2nd amendment interpretation needed. This is the analysis that is supposed to take place anytime the feds want to do ANYTHING.


So all this talk about hunting, “well regulated militias”, muskets, and how vaginas need more rights than guns(seriously wtf are you on about) is merely a distraction to keep people from realizing that the federal government has been granted power that it never had in the first place by the Supreme Court. The great con that has been perpetrated is allowing the government to interpret its own actions as being consistent with a document THAT IT CREATED. Your magic document has failed to protect your freedoms, again and again. In fact IT HAS BEEN USED TO ENSLAVE YOU! Wow, you have to really appreciate the amazingly ironic supervillainy of it all.


Until people wake up and realize that there is no such thing as political authority, the law will simply be used to put them into a smaller and smaller box, redefining freedom until it means what they ultimately want it to mean: The freedom to do what they tell you.


Spooner on the Constitution


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here