Using The Third Amendment In Defense Of The Second Amendment


“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.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






Comments

comments

  • joespenthouse

    Education for those willing to learn is a wonderful thing, Thank you!!!!

  • GQ4U

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

    Rag-Tag American colonists were no match for the mighty British Empire.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Dean.mings Nolan Dean Mings

    Not brilliant, John E. Pure nonsense! So wrong, I don't know where to start refuting!

    • GQ4U

      One or two verifiable examples would be a good place to start refuting..
      Definition of REFUTE. 1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute

      Rhetoric is not refutation.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Young/100001630951601 Mike Young

      Which probably means that you can't refute it. Great logic.

  • http://twitter.com/johneastborough John Eastborough

    BRILLIANT!

  • http://www.muzzlefront.com/3rd/ steve

    What a great read. I've attached my version above. I wrote this up about 3 weeks ago after seeing the dummies talk about it on FB. This version is much more professional. I just had fun with mine. Awesome job. Use this when dealing with oposition. It works. No one knows about the third and they are totally ill prepared to counter. Stick with it and you will make much more headway than going down the normal road. Thanks

    Muzzles Front.