Most “pro-2A” folks still treat the Second Amendment like it’s the absolute ceiling of our gun rights.
Lysander Spooner read it, laughed his ass off, and said nah—it’s the basement floor of a natural right that no tyrant, no legislature, no badge-wearing thug on earth can legitimately touch. The right to arms existed long before any parchment, and it’ll exist long after governments crumble to dust.
Who the Hell Was Lysander Spooner?
1808–1887. Massachusetts lawyer, fire-breathing abolitionist, entrepreneur who told the Post Office to pound sand, and individualist anarchist so radical he made Jefferson and Madison look like spineless moderates begging for scraps of liberty.
This man didn’t ask permission for freedom—he declared government has zero legitimate authority over a free person’s firearms. Period. Full stop.
Spooner Dropping Truth Bombs
On the natural right to self-defense (totally independent of any constitution or government approval):
“The natural right of each individual to defend his own person and property against an aggressor, and to go to the assistance and defence of every one else whose person or property is invaded, is a right without which men could not exist on earth.”
— Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty (1875)
Straight fire. This foundational natural right obviously includes the tools necessary for effective defense—like arms. Your right isn’t granted—it’s inherent. Born with it.
On the link between disarmament and tyranny (especially slavery):
“The right of a man ‘to keep and bear arms’ is a right palpably inconsistent with the idea of his being a slave.”
— The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (1860 edition)
Spooner hammered this point: Slavery requires disarming people. A true free society recognizes the natural right to arms as essential to prevent oppression. He argued the Constitution itself presumes all men free and armed, making slavery (and any broad disarmament) unconstitutional.
He went further in defending fugitives:
This constitutional security for “the right to keep and bear arms,” implies the right to use them—as much as a constitutional security for the right to buy and keep food would have implied the right to eat it.
— Paraphrased from A Defence for Fugitive Slaves (1850)
The right isn’t just to “keep” arms like decorations—it’s to bear and use them when your life or liberty is threatened.
No Limits, No Bullshit Compromises
Spooner tied the right to arms directly to resisting tyranny and injustice. Disarming people—whether slaves or free citizens—is the hallmark of oppression. He didn’t play games with modern statist garbage like “sporting purposes” or “common use.” Telling a free citizen they can only own certain tools while the government stockpiles superior gear? That’s the slave-master logic Spooner eviscerated.
Every single gun law that treats free people as presumptive threats—background checks forcing you to prove innocence, tax stamps, bans on features or magazines, red flags—is aggression against natural rights. It’s usurpation. And resisting that aggression? Spooner’s philosophy of natural justice says it’s morally justified.
Spooner went all in: Any government that infringes natural rights (like arms for self-defense) loses legitimacy. Its agents aren’t protectors—they’re enforcers of injustice.
Tucker vs. Spooner: Good vs. Balls-to-the-Wall
St. George Tucker (1803) said oath-sworn officials must refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. Solid.
Spooner went nuclear: Injustices like disarmament are outright violations of natural law. Resistance—including armed when necessary—isn’t just justified; it’s the duty of free people facing tyranny.
The Spooner Standard
Spooner’s core theme: True liberty requires the people to possess the means of effective resistance against oppression. Disarmament equals subjugation—whether it’s slaves denied guns or citizens restricted today.
This runs through his abolitionist works: Freedom demands the practical ability to defend it. Anything less, and you’re waiting for the boot to stomp harder.
Modern “reasonable regulations”? Treating law-abiding citizens like criminals until proven otherwise? Bans because politicians fear armed free people? That’s the same mindset Spooner destroyed in arguing against slavery.
If you’re still nodding along to “common sense gun safety” or compromising with infringers, you’re not pro-2A—you’re closer to the disarmament crowd than to radicals like Spooner.
Read the man yourself. Start with Vices Are Not Crimes, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, A Defence for Fugitive Slaves.
Then burn every compromise, every FUDD excuse, every “just register it” to the ground.
Own the tools you need to defend your life and liberty—in the quantities and quality required.
Because the second you accept anything less, the experiment in liberty is dead and buried.
No compromise. Ever.
#2A #LysanderSpooner #NoCompromise #ShallNotBeInfringed #NaturalRights #ArmedLiberty