photo of handgun near mug

A Few Constitutional Words on the Gun Debate

action adults backlit dawn
Photo by Pixabay on

In my most recent blog post, I commented a bit on the Trump indictment, from a Constitutional perspective. Today, in the light of various school shootings and mass shootings, I’m pausing to say a Constitutional word about the “gun debate”. Again, my intention is never to be partisan or push a partisan narrative but to shed light from a Constitutional perspective on issues that are current and salient right now.

I always find the name “gun debate” to be a misnomer because calling the discussion around “guns” a “gun debate” presumes that there is something our federal government could do right now, under the current Constitution, to “solve” gun violence (Whether or not federal politicians are the best and only solution to “gun violence” in another debate all together. The founders thought not, thus, right now, they are not the ones with that power). This presumption is indeed wrong. Under the current Constitution, regardless of ours feelings regarding guns or gun control and the like, the federal government does not possess the power to regulate or restrict “arms”. And that is without the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment merely exists to add a second layer of fortification around a liberty that the Constitution already protects.

photo of handgun near mug

Again, the Constitution is our government’s job description. It lays out for government what government can do and thus, by default, what it cannot do. This means our government’s power is not arbitrary. It comes from somewhere, making it both limited an defined. Should it act outside those limitations, the power to do so would be arbitrary (i.e. coming from nowhere) and therefore limitless, regardless of how well-intentioned the action is.

With this basis in mind, I find it curious that people continue to act as if government can just do whatever it wants. There’s a problem in the world? Oh, government should solve it. As if we have an arbitrary government possessing limitless power. Thus, I find it curious that people on both sides of the debate continue to act as if the federal government can just up and “regulate” guns. It cannot.

Discussing the best methods of federal “gun control” is like debating how a pediatrician ought to defend a criminal in court. It’s simply ludicrous and unrelated to the job description or powers of the pediatrician.

Does this mean that we’re ok with the bloodshed we’re seeing? Never. It simply means that the solution being debated is a moot point and a waste of time, effort and money.

If those who want federal gun control, truly want that, they’re better served lobbying state governments to work on a Constitutional amendment that would change the job description the federal of government to allow for the federal government to regulate guns.

If such an option was on the table, then the debate and discussion about whether or not it’s wise to allow the federal government to regulate guns can be had. At such point, it would be valid for those against such federal power to point out the possible consequences of federal gun control while those in favor of such power to point out the possible benefits–then the nation as a whole to makes a decision accordingly.

Until then though, any discussion and debate around how the federal government ought to do more to limit gun violence is a waste of breath and based on a flawed assumption that teh federal government even has the power to do something.

black rifle

Instead such debates simply bequeath upon the federal government a power they don’t possess and thus bequeath to them an unlimited arbitrary power that, should they grab hold of it, would be truly limitless. Thus, it behooves government that we go about such a debate in this uninformed manner so that their power in this realm remains unlimited. If we paused and approached the situation from a rational, informed and truly effective standpoint that assumes their power is limited and will remain limited and defined, even if Constitutionally altered, suddenly government’s power is limited and defined and no longer arbitrary. And trust me, government doesn’t want that.

And that’s truly all there is to this discussion.

The Liberty Belle

2 thoughts on “A Few Constitutional Words on the Gun Debate”

  1. Pingback: A Few Constitutional Words on the Gun Debate – The Liberty Belle –

  2. Ronald J Larson

    Here in Crawford County , MI we have just gone through the gun issues and 2sd Amendment AGAIN , We exlained to both sides and the middle , why ? even discuss it as you have stated , however in Crawford Co. they went ahead only after the call came u for oinions on recalls of 5 county commissioners , sheriff , and flifloing on a sixth commissioner , so they assed a resolution making Craswford Co a ” sancturary county for 2sd amendment ” even worse these same ersons both sides and the middle , have held “local” ractice of neotism and corrution in government above the entierity of the 1st Amendment ? need those 1st amendment auditors u here . They are scared too , they like everyone side ste Crawford County , as federal/state laws do not aly to the “selected few ” and the oor and underserved are like ATM machines with all these ermits , regulations , rules , ordiniances , on and on hundreds of dollars to ut u 2 stes made of a single iece of concrete , don’t seak , do not ublish , they tell you what church to attend , it better not be an assembly , do not dare to file a grievance against them , but at least they let you kee your guns .

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top