The Third Amendment Refutes all Gun Control Arguments

[Quantum Windbag]

The puny little backwater colony of the Americas took on and defeated the most powerful army in the world once back in the eighteenth century. I am pretty sure that the 300,000,000 gun owners in the USA can take on and beat the army in a war over the rights which are granted by our birth. It might be an ugly gorrila war fought in the streets of every city across the nation but the enemy is outnumbered and without resolve. They can't use heavy weapons to wipe out civilians inside cities without massive collateral damage so they will be forced to go house to house in small teams just like they did in the middle east. In a war of attrition the people will win.

England was defeated by great distances and great aid to the rebels from France.

If we expect to be 'saved' by the massively over-weight minority that is ready to actually shoot at another person and risk being killed, we expect far too much.

The men who faced the Redcoats were hard, strong, enduring people. It is dreaming to think the population that would really resist is like those forerunners.

England was defeated because we had guns with better range.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The puny little backwater colony of the Americas took on and defeated the most powerful army in the world once back in the eighteenth century. I am pretty sure that the 300,000,000 gun owners in the USA can take on and beat the army in a war over the rights which are granted by our birth. It might be an ugly gorrila war fought in the streets of every city across the nation but the enemy is outnumbered and without resolve. They can't use heavy weapons to wipe out civilians inside cities without massive collateral damage so they will be forced to go house to house in small teams just like they did in the middle east. In a war of attrition the people will win.

England was defeated by great distances and great aid to the rebels from France.

If we expect to be 'saved' by the massively over-weight minority that is ready to actually shoot at another person and risk being killed, we expect far too much.

The men who faced the Redcoats were hard, strong, enduring people. It is dreaming to think the population that would really resist is like those forerunners.

England was defeated because we had guns with better range.

He also admitted he had no answer this this:

"And how exactly do you think the war would have ESCALATED ENOUGH to grab the attention of France if we were disarmed?

In other words, if the people had no arms to INITIATE the war, France itself would not have been involved."

 

[The2ndAmendment]

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This is a message to all the Gun Grabbers who are fleeing from this thread, courtesy of Lord Denethor:
"Abandon Your Posts, FLEE, Flee for your lives!"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLpPAz0tz98]Denethor giving Motivation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTqt8yljULY]THE THIRD AMENDMENT - Gun Control for Dummies - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The2ndAmendment]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the anti-gun crowd

When this phrase is used, the ‘argument’ is lost.

the police oppression of drones

And with this idiotic phrase, your ‘argument’ is lost.

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.

This is the easiest way to go to jail and become a National laughingstock.

There is no expectation to privacy with regard to aerial surveillance. See: Florida v. Riley (1989).

Neither the Third nor Fourth Amendments would apply, you would consequently be convicted and sent to prison.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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.

So we have the right to shoot down the illegal obamaturd drones, right?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

The puny little backwater colony of the Americas took on and defeated the most powerful army in the world once back in the eighteenth century. I am pretty sure that the 300,000,000 gun owners in the USA can take on and beat the army in a war over the rights which are granted by our birth. It might be an ugly gorrila war fought in the streets of every city across the nation but the enemy is outnumbered and without resolve. They can't use heavy weapons to wipe out civilians inside cities without massive collateral damage so they will be forced to go house to house in small teams just like they did in the middle east. In a war of attrition the people will win.

you would not see that many involved

3 percent tops

and that is stretching it

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So we have the right to shoot down the illegal obamaturd drones, right?

Yes, if your local government passes a resolution barring the flight of drones over your county/city/town.

The Third Amendment (one often forgotten) is sufficient to invalidate the use of drones.

"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."

When one examines the historical context surrounding the Third Amendment, they will quickly realize that it was meant to stop Police Oppression by standing armies. During the Colonial Era, Police Oppression could only be accomplished by large standing armies, which required many resources and mouths to feed. As such, these standing armies would have to lodge their soldiers within the homes of the local population, and almost always drain the local resources and food supply in order to keep themselves well nourished and prepared.

The Third Amendment today, like all other Amendments, needs to modernized for the 21st Century. A government can easily establish a Police State with just drones alone, especially if they are equipped with Non-Lethal Weaponry to suppress Freedom of Assembly. This is precisely why the Third Amendment was written.

On May 3, 1982 in the case Engblom v. Carey, the word "Soldier" was interpreted to mean "Any Agent of the State." Drones are without any doubt an Agent of the State, and furthermore, they are a Military Agent of the State. They are also being quartered over American skies without Consent.

The final clause, "but in a manner to be prescribed by law," implies that only the State Government (if not the Local Government) may Consent to the police occupation of their own State/County/Town, which may be necessary in dire circumstances.

Finally, it appears that there must be an official Declaration of War by Congress for even the State/Local Governments to waive 3rd Amendment protections. The United States has not had any official declarations of war since WWII, which means the People have never Consented to War. If they have not Consented to War, then their 3rd Amendment can not be waived, regardless of the fact that we are actually fighting several wars.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Needs a slap

 

[OriginalShroom]

Why is it that leftists like Saigon keep attempting to compare Law abiding citizens who own guns and have never shot anyone except in self-defense to criminals?