The Third Amendment Refutes all Gun Control Arguments

[Quantum Windbag]

...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?

Effective at what?

 

[Darkwind]

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....

The homicide rate has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. People who set out to kill will find a way to do so. The argument about it being easy to kill more is as obscene as the actual killing.

To kill one is equally as bad as a thousand, and governments have killed by the hundreds of millions, yet you don't argue for the disarmament of governments.

Jesus does weep....for the ignorant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

DEMOCIDE

Source of this statistic?

You don't think wars have killed more people than criminals?

 

[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?

Effective at what?

Jesus wept.....effective at preserving life, maybe?

 

[Agit8r]

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

DEMOCIDE

Source of this statistic?

You don't think wars have killed more people than criminals?

He did provide statistics, and war isn't counted the same in them.

 

[Obamanation]

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?

Effective at what?

Jesus wept.....effective at preserving life, maybe?

Except I already destroyed this entire angle. It's apples and oranges and you know it...

 

[Saigon]

Obamanation -

No, you did not "destroy" it, and there is no way on earth anyone would think that the facts could be destroyed. When we compare the US like-on-like with ANY western developed country we see the same thing. More gun = more murders. It is that simple. Really...you don't think England, Germany or France have gangs?

These are plain, simly obvious facts that actually every poster on this boards sees, understands and agrees with. However, not all posters are honest enough to admit that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Effective at what?

Jesus wept.....effective at preserving life, maybe?

Are you trying to tell me that fewer people end up dead in the UK than the US? I thought the death rate was exactly the same in both countries, one per person.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

good post good point

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Source of this statistic?

You don't think wars have killed more people than criminals?

He did provide statistics, and war isn't counted the same in them.

Democide is a made up word that means violent death by government. I do not agree with the term, but if you are going to use it, you have to admit that wars kill more people than any other form of violence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obamanation -

No, you did not "destroy" it, and there is no way on earth anyone would think that the facts could be destroyed. When we compare the US like-on-like with ANY western developed country we see the same thing. More gun = more murders. It is that simple. Really...you don't think England, Germany or France have gangs?

These are plain, simly obvious facts that actually every poster on this boards sees, understands and agrees with. However, not all posters are honest enough to admit that.

We started this with your assertion that the US had 10 times the homicides of any civilized nation. You then went to it having 2 times the gun homicide rate of any industrialized nation, now you are saying it it has more murders than any western developed nation.

Little confused here by what you define as developed. I have never seen any study that classifies Mexico as a developing nation, mostly because the standard of living is upper middle income, and the education system is pretty good. They, quite demonstrably, have a higher murder rate than we do.

I guess that makes you wrong even though you have moved the goal posts three times in an attempt not to paint yourself into an untenable position. One would think that someone that gets paid to do this type of stuff would be better at it. Tell the truth, they pay you to be cannon fodder to draw the fire of people that can really debate.

 

[Agit8r]

You don't think wars have killed more people than criminals?

He did provide statistics, and war isn't counted the same in them.

Democide is a made up word that means violent death by government. I do not agree with the term, but if you are going to use it, you have to admit that wars kill more people than any other form of violence.

agreed

 

[Lakhota]

The Third Amendment Refutes all Gun Control Arguments

No, it doesn't. The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means - and SCOTUS will shift with public opinion just like it has in the past.

 

[Saigon]

QW-

We started this with your assertion that the US had 10 times the homicides of any civilized nation. You then went to it having 2 times the gun homicide rate of any industrialized nation, now you are saying it it has more murders than any western developed nation.

This is largely a literacy issue, in that you have misunderstood what was posted.

First, I posted the gun-related homicide states.

Then, when asked by Obamanation, I posted the total homicide stats.

The two stats produce different results.

The key point being is that the US has a higher homicide rate than ANY other western, developed nation. higher than the UK, higher than France, Germany, Holland or Australia.

I think we can safely ignore the obvious Mexico red herring. What next - Zimbabwe?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW-

We started this with your assertion that the US had 10 times the homicides of any civilized nation. You then went to it having 2 times the gun homicide rate of any industrialized nation, now you are saying it it has more murders than any western developed nation.

This is largely a literacy issue, in that you have misunderstood what was posted.

First, I posted the gun-related homicide states.

Then, when asked by Obamanation, I posted the total homicide stats.

The two stats produce different results.

The key point being is that the US has a higher homicide rate than ANY other western, developed nation. higher than the UK, higher than France, Germany, Holland or Australia.

I think we can safely ignore the obvious Mexico red herring. What next - Zimbabwe?

Liar.

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

Jesus wept....

My browser tracks everything I post, it takes me no time at all to find anything.

 

[Saigon]

QW -

It's no big deal that you didn't understand what was posted. It happens. I made the first claim in post #9, the second in post #18.

Any honest adult should be able to put their hand up to the mistake and move on. If you can't - you can't.

 

[Saigon]

I'll just posts these stats again so that we can move on:

Gun-related homicides:

England: 41 (rate 0.07)
USA 9,146 (rate 2.97)

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk

Total homicide rates

USA 14,748 (rate 4.8)
UK 722 (rate 1.2)

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW -

It's no big deal that you didn't understand what was posted. It happens. I made the first claim in post #9, the second in post #18.

Any honest adult should be able to put their hand up to the mistake and move on. If you can't - you can't.

Did someone else post under your account? Did I misquote or edit your post? If the answer to both those questions is no, then that is what you said, even if you meant to say something else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll just posts these stats again so that we can move on:

Gun-related homicides:

England: 41 (rate 0.07)
USA 9,146 (rate 2.97)

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk

Total homicide rates

USA 14,748 (rate 4.8)
UK 722 (rate 1.2)

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

And, unless you are using something other than base 10, the US has a homicide rate that is only 4 times that of the UK, not 10.

That makes you wrong, period.

 

[Saigon]

Dear QW -

The main thing is for you to avoid facts. Under no circumstance at all must you address the issue. Use any tactics possible to avoid dealing with the bleeding obvious.

Best wishes,

the NRA.