Humor: What Other Laws can We Ignore?

Share this Article

Democrats often like to claim that the 1st and 2nd Amendments aren’t absolute. If they even deign to defend the Constitution as anything other than a “tool of white supremacy,” they’ll quickly note that “hate speech” isn’t free speech and that the 2nd Amendment is only meant to protect the guns needed for hunting. As if the Founders were worried about the average man being able to shoot a quail or deer.

They’re obviously wrong, but that’s not really the point. They’re wrong about most everything, but our protestations rarely do more than make them chuckle at our naivety. They want power and mean to get it by any means necessary. As Ayn Rand has Dr. Ferris say in Atlas Shrugged:

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

They don’t care about rule of law. They care about power.

So, what other laws can we ignore if the 1st and 2nd Amendments don’t matter?

Can we now ignore the 16th Amendment and stop paying taxes to the behemoth. No, they care about that one.

What about the ridiculous environmental regulations, can factories ignore those? Nope. They have to offshore to China or Vietnam to pollute to their hearts’ content. Democrats still care about the environmental laws.

ATF regulations? Since the 2nd is no longer absolute, surely restrictions on it aren’t either. Nope. You have to follow those or the ATF will burn down your compound, even if kids are inside.

What about hate speech laws? Surely, since the 1st Amendment isn’t absolute anymore, restrictions on it aren’t either. Once again, wrong. Democrats still care about those laws too.

And on and on it could go. It’s readily apparent that they don’t care about consistency, objectivity, or the laws themselves. No, they just care about their goals. Constraining the speech of their opponents matters, so they want to attack the 1st Amendment and claim it’s not absolute, but will simultaneously defend whatever speech laws they’ve come up with as incredibly important.

Should Kyle Rittenhouse file lawsuits against liberal media?(Required)
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

It’s as Ferris said. They’re after power, not the rule of law or consistency.

By: Gen Z Conservative. Follow me on Parler and Gettr.


Share this Article