The Third Amendment Refutes all Gun Control Arguments

[Obamanation]

it isn't an end-around. We are testing the conclusion that you came to in your OP, by examining it against real-world scenarios. The real end-around was your parsing the definition of quartering in a manner that was inconsistent with what you had already stated in your OP.

You are full of crap... It isn't even MY op. ...and I never said a word about quartering...

bringing up "quartering" as if it relates to the issue is asinine...

It is nothing more than an attempt at an end around.

The REAL issue deals with the definition of "bearing arms". At issue with morons on the left in the 2nd, clarified and qualified CLEARLY in the 3rd...

If you think that quartering isn't related to the Third Amendment, there is a bigger problem with reading comprehension that I had realized. And you wonder why your arguments are so interchangeable that y'all are readily confused as one for another

Yeah, I'm done with you on this...

You are just too dense to see the REAL picture here I guess...

Funny thing, is that although we disagree on virtually every issue, I kinda respected you until now....

 

[Sallow]

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.

This is patently absurd.

 

[Obamanation]

This is patently absurd.

So no valid point to make...

[MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This is patently absurd.

You have a right to your own opinions.

 

[Agit8r]

This is patently absurd.

You have a right to your own opinions.

Well, we all know whose opinion really matters when it comes to the Constitution, and it isn't spurious claims by advertisers.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This is patently absurd.

You have a right to your own opinions.

Well, we all know whose opinion really matters when it comes to the Constitution, and it isn't spurious claims by advertisers.

A jury's opinion matters, via Jury Nullification.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

After that Fourth Circuit ruling, I'm stocking up on all the ammo I can.

 

[Agit8r]

After that Fourth Circuit ruling, I'm stocking up on all the ammo I can.

that advertising really does work ...on some people

 

[The2ndAmendment]

After that Fourth Circuit ruling, I'm stocking up on all the ammo I can.

that advertising really does work ...on some people

The Fourth Circuit just declared that we have no right to carry weapons outside our home, and that "gun permits" should only be given if you can prove you have an immiment security need.

In other words, gun permit REVOKATION coupled with forced buyback is comming our way, because we no longer have the right to possess them.

 

[Agit8r]

After that Fourth Circuit ruling, I'm stocking up on all the ammo I can.

that advertising really does work ...on some people

The Fourth Circuit just declared that we have no right to carry weapons outside our home, and that "gun permits" should only be given if you can prove you have an immiment security need.

In other words, gun permit REVOKATION coupled with forced buyback is comming our way, because we no longer have the right to possess them.

A) That last part is a baseless presumption

B) You live in Maryland? http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121437.P.pdf

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's funnier, the content of the OP, or the people who take it seriously?

 

[Agit8r]

What's funnier, the content of the OP, or the people who take it seriously?

hey that advertiser knows the accepted way to sell stuff; with fear

 

[there4eyeM]

Somehow, this explanation of how the 2nd and 3rd amendments marry is vague at best. Plus, 'no soldier' doesn't mean the demand is made by an individual. Perhaps (perhaps) someone might be able to keep one soldier away with firearms, but what would make us think it would ever be a one-on-one situation?
The second talks about arms meaning in proportion to what was known at the time. Heat-seeking missiles, 'depleted' uranium rounds, 'drones' and tanks were unimagined and unimaginable in pre-nineteenth century thinking.

Personally, I am very disappointed in the centralizing of all forms of power in America, especially in politics, energy and money. I would be upset to see 'the government' actually have the power to prohibit and confiscate arms, or actually much of anything. Trying to exclude all and any regulation by resorting to the 2nd and 3rd seems untenable. Defending the absolute right to carry a gun everywhere all the time is such an exaggeration of position that it only hardens the determination of any opposition.

 

[Sallow]

This is patently absurd.

So no valid point to make...

[MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]

Well lets see if you can do the pepsi challenge.

Find something in the constitution that enables you to shoot at government officials or things owned by the government.

 

[PaulS1950]

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.

 

[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 guerrilla 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.

That is the general idea. Even if we die in a 500:1 ratio, the economy would collapse, killing the government for us.

 

[Saigon]

What's funnier, the content of the OP, or the people who take it seriously?

hey that advertiser knows the accepted way to sell stuff; with fear

Indeed - fear, paranoia and complete nonsense.

Statistics and facts are the enemy of any conspiracy theorist-

 

[Obamanation]

What's funnier, the content of the OP, or the people who take it seriously?

hey that advertiser knows the accepted way to sell stuff; with fear

Indeed - fear, paranoia and complete nonsense.

Statistics and facts are the enemy of any conspiracy theorist-

That's funny sai, all your facts and stats got you in this thread was the real rational that gun laws don't do what they are supposed to do and that the only thing that makes sense is taking guns away from criminals...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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....

That would mean that only Monaco, Palau, Hong Kong, Singapore, Iceland, Japan, French Polynesia, and Brunei are civilised among all the countries in the world.

According to you, anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Gun-related homicides:

UK 41

USA 12,497

Moving the goalposts again?