2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants by KrisAnn Hall

Good Morning Patriots:

After reading this piece by attorney, former prosecutor and author KrisAnne Hall, I felt the need to disseminate it as widely as possible, so here it is as a guest post.  Please click the link at the end to read the rest of this excellent article on the 2nd Amendment.  Huge thank you to KrisAnne for her brilliance.

2nd Amendment for Dummies

Screen Shot 2013-01-02 at 6.16.47 PM

King Barry the Waster, has his “gun ban list.”    As evidenced in  HR 1022 which was proposed in 2007, the Liberals are bent on disarming US citizens.  What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing ANY firearm. The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this!  Here is a little 2ndAmendment for Dummies and Tyrants. 

Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788.  Lesson one comes from George Mason.  George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.”  Seems to me a good person to listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.”  Mason first explains the REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers!

“Forty years ago, when the resolution ofenslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, todisarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

In the words of the “Father,” we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government.  But Mr. Mason doesn’t end his lesson there, he continues by making sure we know WHO the militia is and the answer will surely be a surprise to King Barry and his jester, Eric Holder.

“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has askedwho are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation?  I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations! 

Lesson two comes from the great patriot Noah Webster.  Speaking on the threat of an overpowering central government, he further explains, with great clarity, the REASON our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”  Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

Even the dummies out there should be able to follow that.  Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?

1.     To prevent rule by a standing army;

2.     To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;

3.     To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;

4.     The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.

Lesson number 3 comes from a founder referred to in pseudonym as Letter from a Federal Farmer (most likely Richard Henry Lee, writer of the Resolution Declaring Independence).  This interesting explanation is guaranteed to make every liberal and even a “conservative” or two slip into a fit of convulsions.  Mr. Lee explains,

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are forcarefully guarding against it.”  Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.

Mr. Lee explains that it is our DUTY to not simply bear arms but to ALWAYS bear arms. Mr. Lee is probably rolling over in his grave at the idea that we have to ask permission of the government to carry a firearm.  How about that directive that we also must teach our children to bear arms?  I smell the smoke roiling out of the liberals’ ears.

Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry.  Mr. Henry was probably one of the most passionate champion of the citizen’s duty to bear arms.  No one can break it down like Patrick Henry.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

“Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

Well, there you have it, 2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants.  Yet, perhaps King Barry and his court jesters DO UNDERSTAND the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.  Perhaps that is why he is so intent on disarming the people, because he knows, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny. 

Just remember, the Federal government has no legitimate power beyond what its masters delegate to it.  The States are the final battleground against centralized tyranny.   We will defend our States, until we regain our nation. 

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #78

2nd Amendment for Dummies and Tyrants.

Please follow and like us:

Facebook Comments


Share this post


Add yours
  1. Avatar
    Dana Repp 4 January, 2013 at 17:17 Reply

    Excellent! Unfortunately the boobs we have running the country now don’t actually believe that the Constitution means what it says.

  2. Avatar
    wespj 7 January, 2013 at 21:01 Reply

    Despite what you might think based on my comments on other posts on this blog, I agree with almost everything KrisAnne Hall wrote here.

    Most of us (at least on this site) would agree that handguns are absolutely constitutional. But I also think most of us would agree that the government is within it’s rights to pass a law forbidding people to have their own private nuclear weapon, for example.

    So, the 2nd amendment isn’t absolute. Some basic, measured, reasonable restriction can be placed upon it (just as it can on the 1st amendment — yelling “fire” in a theater being the classic example). The question is where to draw the line. Stacy writes like no line of any sort should be drawn at all.

    • Avatar
      Ryan Keech 15 January, 2013 at 10:53 Reply

      The line is drawn at misusing your firearms to commit crime. Automatic firearms and short barreled rifles were banned in 1934 by the national firearms act (read this and more at atf.gov). All firearms dealers must be federally licensed, perform background checks, and keep records of every sale no matter where they sell them (including gun shows). Murder is already illegal. Selling firearms to a minor is already illegal. Being irresponsible or negligent with your firearm is already illegal. Funds and policy should be focused on improving the size, training, and response time of the police force that enforces the laws already written. If an armed police officer had been stationed at the school the shooter likely could have been stopped (search “Officer Carolyn Gudger”). I know you’re exaggerating, but comparing semi-automatic rifles (only one bullet is fired each time the trigger is pulled) to nuclear weapons is a touch extreme. Millions of people use semi-automatic rifles for hunting without incident each year. Where I grew up this hunting isn’t about “sport” it’s about putting food on the table. It’s not just about the second amendment either. Telling every law-abiding rifle owner in the country to turn in their gun would violate our protection against search and seizure as well. Many of the rifles in question are worth thousands of dollars, and have been passed down through families for generations.

      Regardless, I’m not concerned about the constitutionality or morality of gun control laws nearly as much as the effectiveness or lack thereof. After the Columbine murders, schools were declared “gun free zones”. That little bit of knee-jerk, feel-good legislation accomplished nothing but diverting attention and funds away from measures that might actually have had a preventative effect. No investigation was done into the psychiatric drugs almost every mass murderer of the last few decades was taking. No effort was made to increase the availability of police officers or professional security personnel to schools. Even worse, there’s a strong possibility that announcing to every would-be criminal mad-man in the country that no one at a school will have a gun actually encouraged sick individuals to target them. As a father, I’d rather my tax dollars pay for a police officer stationed at the school than see yet another law they can’t afford to enforce get passed.

  3. Avatar
    Vona Van Cleef 19 January, 2013 at 15:30 Reply

    So the point of all this is that when the military comes after us with their AK-47s, we can blow them away with ours?

Post a new comment

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


Enjoying SOTR? Sharing is caring!!