Connect with us


Second Amendment, freedom, and tyranny



The National Criminal Registry would be in keeping with the spirit of the Second Amendment

Is Obama provoking a civil war? The majority of people, including those in the military and law enforcement, employed by government, federal, state or local, are Americans first! Hopefully this administration understands that and will not resort to implementations of Executive Orders which are unconstitutional, break the Second Amendment, and will test each American’s allegiance: to our country, or to this ineligible usurper we falsely call Mr. President.

Does he plan on testing this?

Will he use the Second Amendment to initiate Martial Law and total control?

The Second Amendment may just be the testing ground for Obama’s attempt at implementing Martial law. Make no mistake: as you will see, this government has been hijacked and seems be preparing for something. Civil War? Lost to most of the media, aside from extraordinary purchases of guns, including assault rifles and ammunition, there have been a large increase in troop movements in cities and suburban areas across the country. DHS has just ordered more ammunition than our Military used in all the Iraq war. DHS? Why?

Our military leaders and law enforcement officials need to know of and understand these recent and important rulings before following unconstitutional orders:

  1. Justice Antonin Scalia held in the majority opinion in the case of District of Columbia v Heller: “The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
  2. Even the most liberal Circuit Court in the nation, the Ninth, held in Nordyke v. King: “…the right to bear is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny. Though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.”

If unlawful laws are ignored or refused, bloodshed and thereby implementation of the desired Martial Law can be avoided. It is our hope and our prayer that those in the position to avert this disaster will do their duty and support this country and not one who would subvert it.

It Means What it Says

A timeless symbol of the Second Amendment and of freedom.

The battle flag of the defenders at Gonzales. This was their answer to Generalissimo Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana, who demanded a return of their cannon.

The Second Amendment was written in simple and straight forward English grammar. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed:

…, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Many liberals in an almost comical effort to change the meaning of those written words, suggest that the authors of the Second Amendment didn’t mean what they wrote. That they really meant only the Militia’s right to bear arms can’t be infringed. This despite the Federalist papers and thousands of paragraphs where they showed an exceptional ability to form sentences, but on this clause, they failed to form it correctly. Really?

Again, only Congress has authority to make law, but even they are confined by the restrictions of the Constitutional script. Nor can they or anyone change the definition of shall or shall not. The meaning of “shall not” means shall not. A complicated concept for liberals, except when used in a sentence they can comprehend, such as thou shall not keep what you have earned.


The next part, also a bewilderment for liberals is the word “infringed”. It is discussed here by RoseAnn Salanitri:

The Second Amendment states that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The word “infringed” is perhaps the most powerful word in the Amendment, as well as the word we discuss the least – an unfortunate combination. In a March 27, 2009 interview, Obama’s Eric Holder stated that we should re-institute the ban on assault weapons. But Mr. Holder isn’t the only public official infringing upon our Second Amendment right to bear arms. Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg, both from the State of New York, are ardent Second Amendment “Infringers.” Please excuse my creation of a new word, but it clearly describes the issue and the politicians.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives several meanings for the word infringe that apply. The ones that speak the loudest in this circumstance are: “to break, to violate, to transgress, to neglect to fulfill or obey, to destroy or hinder, to injure, to hurt, to interrupt, to disturb, to oppose, obstruct or defeat the operation or effect of, to pass over or beyond any limit, to surpass, to demolish, to pull down, to ruin or annihilate, to lay waste or to make desolate, to cause to cease, to impede or restrain or obstruct”.

Recall also these words by Thomas Jefferson:

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that…. It is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

Ever Heard Of the Dick Act?

No people, it has nothing to do activity under Clinton’s desk.

The Dick Act is yet another example of Federal and State officials refusing to acknowledge adjudicated law. Concerning any and all gun-control legislation that has yet to be repealed, in short it says:

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18-45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed. To do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Editor’s note: not everyone agrees with this analysis. This disagreement also comes from at least one person who believes the Second Amendment is the real end-of-story against gun-control laws. The theory of non-repeal-ability says such a repeal might make instant outlaws of some people and subject them to retroactive punishment even for having guns. No one suggests that Congress may never repeal a law. They suggest instead that a repeal of the Dick Act, as amended, would make criminal what today is non-criminal, thus legislating ex post facto or passing a massive bill of attainder.

How About The 14th Amendment?

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States.

This Amendment insures equality for all citizens. Which means that every citizen is entitled to any and all protection afforded to anyone else. In short it says politicians and elites are no more equal than every other or any other citizen.

Congressmen, governors, senators, and even snobbish big city mayors award themselves the right to self protection. Either by carrying a firearm or by hiring those who will be armed. Those people are no more equal than any other law abiding citizen and to allow the “elites” armed protection and then to deny it to others, is a clear and undeniable violation of the 14th Amendment.

Even if we did not have the Second Amendment, which of course we do, the Fourteenth Amendment ensures every citizen the same opportunity and rights of protection that others have been afforded.

Assault Weapons or Defensive Weapons?

We Americans have had enough liberal political double talk concerning our right to own military style weapons. It is irrelevant as to whether they are conducive for hunting or not. Even though some hunters do use them, their use is protected under the supreme law of this country. The Second Amendment says nothing about hunting, target shooting, need, collecting or any such activity. No infringement is the only stipulation,


Another question that requires an honest answer, who will protect the people if there’s a societal breakdown?

For instance:

  • Katrina, in which gangs of hoodlums looted and fired on police and other rescue workers.
  • Los Angeles, California, 1992, following the Rodney king episode which saw six days of rioting, looting, arson and scores of people killed and thousands more wounded.

In the Rodney King riots, referenced above, the police were overwhelmed and were unable to defend and protect life an property. As the mobs moved from their own areas and advanced towards the location called Korea Town, if it had not been for Korean citizens, armed with so called assault rifles, which they used as defense rifles, creating a “no riot zone” and defending it from the roof tops, their community and their people would have felt the same devastation as those in the black community. For those who may not know, even wild gangs understand the power of armed resistance. The Korean area saved itself and the rioting was stopped at their door step. Thank you Founding Fathers.

Part of the Second Amendment series on Tea Party Advocacy Tracking Hub

See also:


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A few comments for Mr. Purpura:

– Your focus on the “shall not be infringed” part of the 2nd Amendment sidesteps the key words that precede it: “A well-regulated militia”. As I pointed out in Roseann’s essay, the meaning of “regulated” is the same now as it was then, and the Founders clearly wrote this amendment with the intention that the “right” to arms was still subject to regulation in the public interest.

– The same Justice Scalia you quote above also was clear that the Founders intended the right to bear arms to be a regulated one, saying last July that “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne”
link to

-Conservative hero Ronald Reagan passed the Mulford Act as governor, which was targeted at blacks who insisted on bearing arms in defense against potential police abuse. This act was supported by the NRA at the time, and was not ruled unconstitutional by the courts then. If Obama tried to pass a similar law that would be “tyranny” by your reasoning. How does that not make Reagan a tyrant then?

– And on the topic of Reagan, he supported the Brady Bill, and personally convinced enough Republican holdouts to pass the assault weapons ban in the 1990’s. Reagan was a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but how does his advocacy for background checks and limiting the kinds of weapons a person can possess not make him a tyrant, if Obama’s similar policies do?


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x