Essay Question on the Second Amendment:

Please explain how a document which states as its purposes is to "form a more perfect Union...insure domestic Tranquility" (Preamble).

Then makes it clear that the role of the militia is "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, clause 15).

We need to add in Article IV, Section 4, the Domestic Violence Clause:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."  

This provision in our Constitution requires that the federal government protect us from harms that we inflict upon ourselves, harms that threaten our health and our survival: in particular domestic insurrections.

Finally, Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That rules out "natural law" as being legal precedent.

With the real kicker being Article III, Section. 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Constitution seems pretty clear that insurrection is not a right.

Next we come to Amendment II:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, I need to keep reminding you of the rule of construction: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

 "The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another."  That is items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as."

None of that is present in the above passages.


Simple form since I know the calibre of intelligence here:

• If the statute mentions it--it is covered.

• If the statute don't mention it--it ain't covered.

In this case, we do not see anything in the Second Amendment which mentions "fighting tyranny" (as it also lacks any specific mention of personal uses such as hunting or self-defence).


The rules to this are simple and found here. BTW, using the rules, in particular, Internal and external consistency, where it is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. That is, a  particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act.The Second Amendment applies to the Militia based upon Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 granting congress the power to ARM the Militia.

Please explain how things which are not specifically can be legally covered?  How do you read into the text things which not only aren't present, but are inconsistent with the document?

I can't wait to see the idiotic comments you will make.