The Third Amendment Refutes all Gun Control Arguments

[The2ndAmendment]

I saw this article, and I agree with it.

Using The Third Amendment In Defense Of The Second Amendment : Freedom Outpost

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

–Third Amendment to the United States Constitution

Most discussions about the Second Amendment don’t involve the Third Amendment. In fact, most people consider the Third Amendment virtually irrelevant.

However, the Third Amendment is the best argument for the Second Amendment. Whereas the Second Amendment can be massaged, the Third cannot. Consider that “the right to bear arms” has been defined ad absurdum. What is an “arm”? What is it to “bear” arms? Who are the “militia” and who are the “people”? What does “infringed” mean?

Oh sure, we know exactly what the Second Amendment means. Concisely, it is the right of the people to defend themselves against tyranny and fascism. An armed society tends to be a more careful society, perhaps even more polite.

But when the anti-gun crowd speaks of the Second Amendment, they cleverly twist it. To them, an “arm” is a musket, because that’s what the framers shot. To them, an “arm” is a six-shooter, because… well, because they say so. To them, to “bear” arms is to hunt. To them, “militia” applies only to military or police. They think themselves quite logical, even brilliant, though our founders say otherwise.

Whether gun controllers are liars or simply uninformed, they are passionate to control, and sometimes they even get away with legislating against certain types of guns. Bill Clinton was able to get gun control legislation passed in 1994.

However, the Third Amendment isn’t so easy to twist or diminish, and the Third Amendment makes a great case for more guns, and more modern weapons. For if a soldier demands to be quartered in your home, how do you respond? To object to the quartering, you can hold up the Constitution as garlic against a vampire. But in that situation your Constitution is likely to be shredded. You might try yelling for help, but where will that get you? You might try calling the police, but will you make it to the telephone?

To uphold the Third Amendment requires enforcement. To enforce your private property rights you will need some firepower. That’s where your right to bear arms comes into play.

For if a soldier demands to be quartered, your objection must have teeth. At such time, a semi-automatic or automatic weapon makes a good deterrent. It will be an unwise soldier who demands rather than requests quartering in that house.

“But,” the anti-gun ninnies bray, “you are no match for a soldier.”

Perhaps, perhaps not. But you are certainly more of a match with a weapon than without a weapon. Even if you “can’t” win against a soldier, weaponry betters your odds. A soldier who won’t take “no” for an answer will likely respect the sound of an AR.

“But,” the anti-gun communists sputter, “a soldier will be wearing armor anyway.”

Well, that makes a good case for ownership of armor-piercing bullets, doesn’t it? To repel a modern soldier requires modern weaponry. The more advanced a soldier’s technology, the more necessity for equal technology!

“But,” the anti-gun Nazis add, “you can’t fight government tanks and bazookas.”

If our government uses tanks on us, the Third Amendment is the least of our worries. Some might argue, “Why not just let the soldier be quartered?”

First, because we don’t have to. The Third Amendment protects our private property rights. Strangers, even soldiers, may be denied access to your home, as it should be. It doesn’t matter if the soldier is rogue or was commanded to take over your house. A homeowner has the right to use force against governmental home invasions. We have a right to defend our homes against our own military.

Yes, our own military, because there’s no need for an Amendment vs. foreign invaders. There is no argument which can defeat this truth.

Now, if someone wants to voluntarily surrender his home, that’s his business. But that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to surrender, unless “prescribed by law.”

“Prescribed by law” means according to a manner agreeable to the people. Therefore, the people themselves shall, by majority, decide how to quarter soldiers.

Second, what if a soldier decides not only to quarter, but also to terrorize? Give an inch, take a mile. If I don’t trust a particular soldier in my house, the Third Amendment gives me space. In reality, it doesn’t matter if you trust or don’t trust any particular soldier. You have a right to refuse any soldier entry to your house, for any reason.

Third, what if you are a peacenik who doesn’t believe in waging war? Isn’t forced quartering trampling on your beliefs? Only the statist, not even the liberal, would say no. But again, you don’t need a reason to refuse a soldier entry to your house. The Third Amendment upholds the right of such refusal.

The Third Amendment therefore also upholds the right to adequate weaponry.

The Second Amendment authorizes arms for the people.

The Third Amendment makes clear that “arms” equals “arms adequate to repel soldiers.” The Third Amendment is a fascinating anti-fascist statement.

Our founders are truly to be admired.

Because of the framework they established, two centuries later my company is producing the MK5 Joshua Ar/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle which will hit the market March 2013.

Read more: Using The Third Amendment In Defense Of The Second Amendment : Freedom Outpost

When we interpret that Third Amendment (based on Griswold vs Connecticut) to accommodate modern technological advances, it is easily shown that Drones are considered "Soldiers," even if they are unarmed:

That's because the 3rd Amendment has not been interpreted to account for modern times.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Douglas interpreted "Soldier" to imply "agent of the state." An agent by definition is "a person or thing that acts or has the power to act on another's behalf." The word "agent" was very specially selected among many other similar words that could have been used.

Also, in historical context, the Third Amendment is designed to protect the people against police oppression by an overwhelming military presence in a concentrated area.

When we take that into consideration, there are many things that we can consider "agents of state." A drone is an agent of the state, as is a piece of computer software that is installed on your computer (by the government).

In order for citizens to defend themselves against the police oppression of drones (if they get out of hand), they will need a reason to sue (or be sued). The easiest way to get your day in Court would be to exercise your Second Amendment right to enforce the Third Amendment, by shooting the drone out the air. The government would most likely sue you immediately, and the jury would apply Jury Nullification to find the citizen Not Guilty. The government would be shocked to see that the jury ruled in favor of the defendant. That defendant would be a national hero.

 

[Obamanation]

The Third Amendment makes clear that “arms” equals “arms adequate to repel soldiers.”

Was there EVER any doubt?

I can only imagine how the left will bastardize this...

Gun control that doesn't apply specifically to criminals is just further attempts by this administration to shred the Constitution.

 

[Agit8r]

“Prescribed by law” means according to a manner agreeable to the people. Therefore, the people themselves shall, by majority, decide how to quarter soldiers.
...
The Third Amendment makes clear that “arms” equals “arms adequate to repel soldiers.”

contradictory

 

[The2ndAmendment]

“Prescribed by law” means according to a manner agreeable to the people. Therefore, the people themselves shall, by majority, decide how to quarter soldiers.
...
The Third Amendment makes clear that “arms” equals “arms adequate to repel soldiers.”

contradictory

Explain how it is a contradiction, also remember that "Prescribed by law," only applies during "times of war."

Also keep this in mind:

We have a right to defend ourselves against our own military. Yes, our own military, because there’s no need for an Amendment vs. foreign invaders. There is no argument which can defeat this truth.

Also keep in mind that "Soldier" has been determined by the Supreme Court to mean ANY agent of the state (this also applies to State and Local governments through the 14th Amendment).

 

[Saigon]

An armed society tends to be a more careful society, perhaps even more polite.

Yes, having a homicide rate 10 times that of any other civilised nation certainly speaks for the politeness of US society.

Jesus wept....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Third Amendment makes clear that “arms” equals “arms adequate to repel soldiers.”

Was there EVER any doubt?

I can only imagine how the left will bastardize this...

Gun control that doesn't apply specifically to criminals is just further attempts by this administration to shred the Constitution.

Agitator gave it a one word answer, and failed miserably.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

An armed society tends to be a more careful society, perhaps even more polite.

Yes, having a homicide rate 10 times that of any other civilised nation certainly speaks for the politeness of US society.

Jesus wept....

Let's actually suppose that this comment had merit, how does it contradict the main argument? Also learn how to spell "civilized."

However, now examining your remark, WELCOME TO FEDERALISM 101:

You cannot compare the United States directly to any other country.

We have a reigning governmental structure known as FEDERALISM.

The laws and Constitution of each State is vastly DIFFERENT from the laws and Constitution of every other State.

Also, within each State, the laws of each city and town are moderately DIFFERENT from the laws of every other city and town.

Also, keep in mind, that many federal laws (that are govern the whole nation), are executed differently in different states, especially when significant devolution procedures have been written into that law.

Countries, like the UK, are UNITARY governments. The variance in local laws are microscopic in places like the UK. Moderate differences in law are only seen between rural and urban regions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This means, when you compare the laws of a UNITARY government, to the laws of the United States, are you no better off comparing Apples to a Smorgasbord.

In order to compare a UNITARY government to the United States, you should only consider Cities and towns that are governed by the same or very similar laws. Sometimes you MIGHT be able to compare them to an entire State, however, you can NEVER compare them to the entire Union.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enjoy!

So bearing the concept of Federalism in mind, we can only compare cities and states with Strict Gun Control to other countries with strict gun control. So let's compare Chicago vs the UK vs Mexico.

 

[Saigon]

Also learn how to spell "civilized."

civilised

Adj. 1. civilised - having a high state of culture and development both social and technological; "terrorist acts that shocked the civilized world"
civilized
educated - possessing an education (especially having more than average knowledge)
refined - (used of persons and their behavior) cultivated and genteel; "she was delicate and refined and unused to hardship"; "refined people with refined taste"
2. civilised - marked by refinement in taste and manners; "cultivated speech"; "cultured Bostonians"; "cultured tastes"; "a genteel old lady"; "polite society"
cultured, genteel, polite, civilized, cultivated
refined - (used of persons and their behavior) cultivated and genteel; "she was delicate and refined and unused to hardship"; "refined people with refined taste"

civilised - definition of civilised by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Saigon]

So let's compare Chicago vs the UK vs Mexico.

Gun-related homicides:

UK 41

USA 12,497

 

[Obamanation]

An armed society tends to be a more careful society, perhaps even more polite.

Yes, having a homicide rate 10 times that of any other civilised nation certainly speaks for the politeness of US society.

Jesus wept....

Come on Saigon --- that is a joke of a claim.

 

[Saigon]

An armed society tends to be a more careful society, perhaps even more polite.

Yes, having a homicide rate 10 times that of any other civilised nation certainly speaks for the politeness of US society.

Jesus wept....

Come on Saigon --- that is a joke of a claim.

You are right - 20 times is closer to the truth.

 

[Agit8r]

“Prescribed by law” means according to a manner agreeable to the people. Therefore, the people themselves shall, by majority, decide how to quarter soldiers.
...
The Third Amendment makes clear that “arms” equals “arms adequate to repel soldiers.”

contradictory

Explain how it is a contradiction, also remember that "Prescribed by law," only applies during "times of war."

Also keep this in mind:

We have a right to defend ourselves against our own military. Yes, our own military, because there’s no need for an Amendment vs. foreign invaders. There is no argument which can defeat this truth.

Also keep in mind that "Soldier" has been determined by the Supreme Court to mean ANY agent of the state (this also applies to State and Local governments through the 14th Amendment).

So by this logic, if there is no declaration of war in place, the police can't forcibly enter a home to arrest a fugitive child molester? Or rather, the fugitive has the right to shoot them, without penalty?

 

[Obamanation]

So let's compare Chicago vs the UK vs Mexico.

Gun-related homicides:

UK 41

USA 12,497

...and homicides total per captia???

 

[Obamanation]

contradictory

Explain how it is a contradiction, also remember that "Prescribed by law," only applies during "times of war."

Also keep this in mind:

We have a right to defend ourselves against our own military. Yes, our own military, because there’s no need for an Amendment vs. foreign invaders. There is no argument which can defeat this truth.

Also keep in mind that "Soldier" has been determined by the Supreme Court to mean ANY agent of the state (this also applies to State and Local governments through the 14th Amendment).

So by this logic, if there is no declaration of war in place, the police can't forcibly enter a home to arrest a fugitive child molester? Or rather, the fugitive has the right to shoot them, without penalty?

pathetic...

 

[Obamanation]

Yes, having a homicide rate 10 times that of any other civilised nation certainly speaks for the politeness of US society.

Jesus wept....

Come on Saigon --- that is a joke of a claim.

You are right - 20 times is closer to the truth.

...and total homicides per capita???

 

[Agit8r]

Explain how it is a contradiction, also remember that "Prescribed by law," only applies during "times of war."

Also keep this in mind:

Also keep in mind that "Soldier" has been determined by the Supreme Court to mean ANY agent of the state (this also applies to State and Local governments through the 14th Amendment).

So by this logic, if there is no declaration of war in place, the police can't forcibly enter a home to arrest a fugitive child molester? Or rather, the fugitive has the right to shoot them, without penalty?

pathetic...

it's a yes or no question

 

[Obamanation]

So by this logic, if there is no declaration of war in place, the police can't forcibly enter a home to arrest a fugitive child molester? Or rather, the fugitive has the right to shoot them, without penalty?

pathetic...

it's a yes or no question

It's also asinine...

 

[Saigon]

...and homicides total per captia???

UK 1.2 per 100,000

USA 4.8 per 100,000

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So which society has the more effective laws?

 

[Agit8r]

pathetic...

it's a yes or no question

It's also asinine...

If I have somehow misunderstood this argument, please feel free to clarify

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Is there some reason Saigon keeps forgetting Mexico?

Anyway, let's suppose that Saigon was right about the crime, let's just pretend the Gun Control people were actually right about crime.

It still wouldn't matter, because the the number one cause of violent death is:

DEMOCIDE

Also, even if you're right about the crime (which you are not), it still doesn't refute the 3rd Amendment!

Not a leg to stand on.