Stefan Kinsella on the Second Amendment

Subject: Stefan Kinsella on the Second Amendment Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:22 am

The Second Amendment is not "about" anything. It's just some language in a piece of legislation, crafted by a committee of power-seeking racist bureaucrats. See Hasnas, The Myth of the Rule of Law (https://web.archive.org/.../hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm) . Legislation never has an official "purpose". It's never "about" anything. Just words on paper. See https://mises.org/.../another-problem-legislation-james...

And yes, the Constitution is just legislation. Constitutionalists don't like to admit this. But it is. They think it is something special. Some distillation of natural law. Puh-lease. The Constitution is not libertarian in the slightest. It's time libertarians rid themselves of these pro-American fantasies. The Constituion is not comprehensive, it is not flawless, it is not holy, it is not free of inconsistencies. The Second Amendment is simply a precautionary limit on federal government power. It is supposed to be redundant, given the 10th amendment. And the 9th, I guess. Whatever the 9th is supposed to mean (nobody knows; Raoul Berger was right, IMO http://www.stephankinsella.com/.../berger_barnett_ninth.pdf ).

But it was supposed to be a limit on federal power, and that's all. Not a "right". Not a limit on China. Not a limit on England. Not a limit on New York. Only on the new fedgov.

And it didn't work--it was not even recognized even in limited form, until a few years ago in Heller -- so 200 years it was as flaccid as Bod Dole the elderly statist viagra pitchman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBdgpjnKInA -- and even that has been largely eviscerated and ignored by lower courts. Libertarians are weak on this because they seem not to understand federalism, and "constitutionalists" are weak on this too since they think it matters whether a right to bear arms is enumerated in the second amendment or not--the ninth says it doesn't matter. And even if it were--it doesn't matter since the fedgov's court gets to interpret it and they say that these rights are not "absolute"--like the first amendment-the state may override them if it has a "compelling" need. Sorry, if its pet court says it has a compelling need. Like Buck v. Bell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

Second Amendment enthusiasts are deluded.

(From a Facebook post)

Stefan Kinsella on the Second Amendment

Stefan Kinsella on the Second Amendment

Anarcho-Capitalist Categorical Imperatives

Inside AnCaps, Philosophy, Libertarians & Ancapdemia's Ebony Basement