On March 8th of this year, The Atlantic published an essay by Duke University law professor Joseph Blocher and Yale University law professor Reva Siegel in which the two authors used vacuous arguments, inane legal interpretations, and lots of outright lies to argue that “America must regulate guns not only to protect life, but to protect its citizens’ equal freedoms to speak, assemble, worship, and vote without fear.” This is an argument that every intelligent and educated American immediately recognizes as self-contradictory and referencing “freedoms” that do not exist. We are therefore left with the clear understanding that the authors are lacking in either intelligence or morality. Or both.

In response to these professors’ grossly misleading and destructive drivel, I have taken upon myself the ridiculously easy task of refuting their entire argument with little more than what used to be taught in an 8th grade civics class.

You might detect a note of disdain in my written tone here, which is intentional. I have utter contempt for so-called law professors who ignore the basis of law and the purpose of law to at once lend credence to government tyranny and prescribe a course of action that works more than any other to destroy individual liberty; that very thing that our forefathers established our government to protect and defend.

But then came the “law professors.”

Since every paragraph of their essay is rife with idiocy, we don’t have to go very deep into the text to find a glaring problem. In fact, let’s start with the very first 3-word sentence.

“Why regulate guns?”

Why indeed? Gun are not and have never been a problem…or even the problem that gun banners continually and erroneously decry. What’s more, gun banners and their activist lackeys, like profs Blocher and Siegel here, know this all too well. So they are relegated to demagoguing the issue. In fact, one of the reasons that their essay is so ridiculously wrong is that they have to try very hard to obscure their intent behind an orgy of proxy targets and wink-and-a-nod explanations.

Since just law is meant only to protect and defend individual liberty, and “regulating”¹ guns has nothing to do with this, the entire business of infringing on citizens’ access to inanimate objects is and always has been at odds with just law. Additionally, since our Constitution clearly prohibits infringement of the people’s right to keep and bear arms, the argument is ridiculously and most often about the objects themselves rather than our protected right to own and carry them. Most often, anyway.

Here’s the entire first paragraph of the essay. It’s a doozy.

Why regulate guns? The standard answer is that gun laws can prevent needless deaths and physical injury. But this is not a complete accounting. As gun-brandishing protesters and armed invasions of legislatures demonstrate, guns inflict more than physical injuries—they transform the public sphere on which a constitutional democracy depends. America must regulate guns not only to protect life, but to protect its citizens’ equal freedoms to speak, assemble, worship, and vote without fear. If legislators and judges do not focus on the freedoms that gun regulation protects, guns will threaten those freedoms.

So, “…guns laws can prevent needless deaths and physical injury.” That is a bald faced lie continuously proclaimed by tyrants and their minions.

No gun law has ever prevented even a single injury or death. The reasons for this clear and simple fact are manifold. Among them, gun laws ignore and are impotent toward the only things that cause injuries and death: namely, criminal acts and individual negligence. Moreover, and this is key, criminals do not obey laws. It is important to point out here that since “gun laws” in no way serve to protect or defend individual liberty (quite the opposite, actually), they violate the purpose of law. More so because they serve as backdoor infringements on our natural and inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Next, “As gun-brandishing protesters and armed invasions of legislatures demonstrate, guns inflict more than physical injuries—they transform the public sphere on which a constitutional democracy depends.” This sentence is a train wreck of idiocy.

First, the reference to “armed invasions of legislatures” is a double lie, since 1) investigators have stated unequivocally that none of the January 6th protestors in the Capitol building were armed, and 2) there was not more than one “invasion.” Unless you count the time that Democrat terrorists bombed the Capitol building (and later went on to join the administration of Black Lives Matter).

Also, ours is not a “constitutional democracy,” Joseph and Reva, but rather a representative republic. Apparatchiks continually mislabel our system as a “democracy” in order to malevolently do away with ideas that support the vital pillars of our nation and culture. And if these two “professors” don’t understand how our representative republic relates directly to the mechanisms and structural components of our government, then they should both go back to 8th grade civics class and learn it. Oh, our leftist-insurgent government no longer teaches that, do they? Weird.

Note also that the “gun-brandishing protestors” haven’t burned down a single building, looted a single business, or initiated violence against a single citizen. No, that’s your beloved BLM and Antifa who “transform the public sphere.” The good people of this nation have no reason to arm or protest unless the government—or their sponsored thugs—substantively threaten and harm their liberty and way of life. By contrast, the bad people of this nation continually perpetrate mayhem and violence against the good people and their property…and are rewarded by both the government and corporate left with MILLIONS of dollars and organizational facilities.

No, they decry the “gun-brandishing protestors,” and it is nothing but a distraction from the actual harm being done by their political-insurgent comrades and allies.

Then, in this idiocy of, “America must regulate guns not only to protect life, but to protect its citizens’ equal freedoms to speak, assemble, worship, and vote without fear. If legislators and judges do not focus on the freedoms that gun regulation protects, guns will threaten those freedoms,” the authors reveal the depth of their corruption, and contempt for liberty and intelligent individuals. For it is guns that are used to defend innocent life more than 2 million times every year in the United States; a figure more than 100 times greater than the number of times criminals commit murder using a gun each year. Note also that there exists no freedom to do anything “without fear.” Each man's fear is his own business. Were individual liberty to be governed by subject to the irrational and frivolous emotions of others, it would not exist.

Lastly, the idea that gun regulation protects freedoms is as stupid as the idea that wall regulation protects borders. Moreover, it is the refusal to give up guns and the proficient use of guns that led to the establishment of the very first nation in history founded upon individual liberty. So these arguments are the antithesis of moral and accurate arguments.

Next, the authors posit:

“Is the Second Amendment an obstacle to gun regulation intended to protect the public sphere against weapons threats? In 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court found that Americans have a right to keep and bear a handgun in their home for self-defense. In doing so, the Court assumed a paradigmatic scene of gun use: a “law-abiding citizen” defending his or her household against a criminal invader. But the Court did not address scenes in which guns threaten the exercise of liberties by other law-abiding citizens, whether those threats occur in the home or in public.”

Guns don’t threaten anyone or anything. They just lie there and do nothing. The threat comes from a criminal who willfully and unlawfully exercise force or deadly force. In fact, the only way one can make the argument that inanimate objects—guns—threaten anything or anyone is…falsely. Which is why those who make such inane arguments do so using emotional language and verbal imagery, and/or attempt to dazzle the reader with legal jargon and complex statutory webbing, as Blocher and Reva do in their essay.

Later, the authors begin grasping at straws, from which they construct a well-worn straw man:

“This phenomenon raises fundamentally different questions than does the scene on which Heller was premised. These gun owners are not wielding guns against home invaders—they are bringing their guns to public spaces, seeking to dominate those spaces. Though armed protesters may employ a language of self-defense and victimhood, they do so to justify acting against those with whom they disagree. Some of them do not even invoke the self-defense that Heller described, but rather rely on the “insurrectionary theory” of the Second Amendment—claiming they are defending the republic against its enemies…

It is perhaps relevant to point out that communists (BLM) and socialists (Antifa) are, by definition, enemies of our republic. The fact that war has not been declared by our nation upon them is indeed sad, but it is a matter of record that they have declared war upon our nation. The members of America’s armed forces have throughout history expended copious effort, materiel, and blood killing communists and socialists all over the world, specifically for what they represent and impose upon societies. Every time they appear.

So the “claim” is very full of precedent and veracity.

“Public-health arguments for gun control do not fully capture all the harms these incidents inflict. Armed mobs threaten democratic life itself. As the organizers of “Stop the Steal” had hoped, the nation witnessed its leaders crouched under benches in the Capitol, unable to count the electoral vote. Such threats and assaults, and the failure to evenhandedly police those harms, transform the public sphere and elevate some rights and some voices above others. In these and many other circumstances, gun regulation defends the body politic.

It is ironic that here the authors speak about elevating some rights and some voices above others, as what they prescribe in all of this is ALMOST exactly that—but for the fact that they rather seek to elevate nonexistent rights over actual rights. It’s especially inappropriate, too, when their accusation is a plain ol’ lie. Because those who wanted to “stop the steal” were not concerned with elevating any rights, but instead in demanding their representatives consider interrupting the consecration of a heinous crime.

Also, since those who infiltrated the Capitol building were, to a man, unarmed, it seems a hollow point to begin with. Especially when you consider that it was 1) already illegal to infiltrate the Capitol on that day, 2) already illegal to carry firearms into the Capitol (if they had done so, but didn’t), and 3) illegal to attempt to coerce elected representatives with force. Point being that there is no law that can prevent anyone from breaking any law. Adding yet another layer of “really strict!” laws can only have zero effect on criminal activity, which—by definition—is conducted in defiance of law.

“Gun-rights advocates have thus expanded practices of gun use, and urge the Supreme Court to extend Heller’s constitutional protections to public carry outside the home. But many advocates of gun regulation focus on threats of physical injury only. Without question, gun regulation is needed to address the mass shootings, intimate-partner violence, suicides, and daily homicides that account for roughly 40,000 deaths and 100,000 injuries every year.* Americans also need their democratic government to work, and that means protecting citizens from intimidation when they exercise their civic rights, and protecting government officials from weapons threats when they are trying to conduct normal business.”

Gun-rights advocates have in no way “expanded practices of gun use.” That statement is simply yet another lie. And there is no need to “urge the Supreme Court to extend Heller’s constitutional protections to public carry outside the home,” because Heller has no bearing on an already known, inalienable, and constitutionally consecrated right possessed by every human being. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, as our Constitution unequivocally states, shall not be infringed. Period. Paragraph.

Moreover, it is not and never has been the business of any individual or government to be concerned with or kowtow to what some individual or group may feel about individuals exercising their God-given rights. Arguing otherwise, as Blocher and Reva do here, is childish and insulting. It’s also professionally and legally vacuous.

“Anglo-American common law has regulated weapons not only to keep members of the polity alive, but to protect their liberties from weapons threats and to preserve public peace and order. William Blackstone himself, the great chronicler of the common law, wrote that ‘riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land.’ The ‘peace’ that the law protected encompassed more than physical safety. As Blackstone made clear, “terrifying the good people of the land”—not just attacking them—was ‘a crime against the public peace.’”

Here, first of all, to hell with your invocations of British law and legal tyrants. Our nation was founded in direct and deliberate defiance of that pile of horseshit. Citing it here is both a non sequitur and sophomorically inflammatory.

To the greater point, again, there is no law that can or ever has had any effect on the will of criminals to break it. Our laws have but one purpose: to define the boundaries of our civilization and society and, perhaps, prescribe the penalties for transgression. And nothing more. The continued, idiotic harping on how adding yet more laws will magically stop criminals from transgressing the law is, again, childish and petulant.

Finally, the authors go on with more irrelevancies and blather, but then end with this ridiculous paragraph:

“If Americans do not recognize the social dimensions of public safety—the ancient role that weapons laws play in securing peace and public order—the use of guns will come to define America’s constitutional democracy, rather than the other way around.”

Excrement. The ancient role that “weapons law” (a non sequitur) plays in securing peace and public order is a matter of clear record, as the most arms-restrictive cities and nations on the planet are also the most violent.

Rather, it is the role that armed citizens and uncompromised individual liberty play in securing peace and public order that wise individuals and enlightened societies respect. Our founders understood this wisdom, which is why they consecrated the people’s right to keep and bear arms in our Constitution, even going so far as to add, “shall not be infringed.” I’ll say that again: Shall not be infringed.

They made this explicit, unequivocal declaration because they knew that lapdog-totalitarian-tool apparatchiks like Blocher and Reva would continually desire and work to disarm the people and then deprive them of liberty and property. Today, however, it is up to us citizens to elect just, moral, and conscientious representatives to hinder those evil actions. And as you can see from Blocher and Reva’s feeble essay, there is much work to be done, lest weak minds be led astray by Useful Idiots.

To summarize: guns are NO threat to the body politic. Every threat, either ideologically or physically, comes from an individual or group of individuals making deliberate choices. And despite any and every law ever conceived by both just and vile men, criminals will always and effortlessly breeze right past the legal aspects and simply do what evil men do. But using that indisputable fact as justification to destroy liberty and enslave men to irrational whims is itself the definition of evil.