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.


Print Friendly





Comments

comments

  • Jack Spraat

    Guys, what of posse comitatus? The gov't is supposed to be in serious trouble with fines, prison sentences, etc. just for proposing interference in the states business much less with arms, HSA is exempt through the coast guard, (high seas law) enforcement, so they may buy all the ammo they want, and expand their "Arms" to any point to enforce those laws, HSA is the oversight folks for the coast guard. We need the people to be in charge of the coast guard, Posse comitatus has to apply, it is the teeth for all the amendments controlling the powers of federal gov't except the national guard, which is commanded by the governor of the particular state. The federal government needs permission of the governor to deploy the air force, marines, or army into his state. "posse comitatus" Just google it, it is the law, Period!

  • Steve Rhinehart AKA Peter Propwash, Rufis Mcgoofis, Outlaw Aviator

    From my cold dead hands, When I run out of bullets, come and get em. How many today would stand by that? How many would say anything you want just dont hurt me? How many would surender to see there favorite TV show?
    Talk is cheep but how many have been made cowards by promiss of safty or an easy life?

  • David Lamon

    The reason I read there is such a shortage of ammunition is because the government quit selling spent shell cartridges to ammo manufacturers making them much more scarce. Daniel Patrick Moynahan a Democrat came up with the solutions several years to disarming the American citizen by making ammo scarce to the public and it appears the Democrats have taken him up on that suggestion.

  • http://currmudegeon-patriot.blogspot.com PeterK

    Feb
    11
    Part 5: Government above the Law.
    5A) Monitor Political Activity of Advocacy Groups
    5B) Define The Tea Party as: Terrorist
    Tomorrow:
    6) Obama’s Four-Steps to Gain Full MILITARISTIC Control of the United States
    at: http://currmudgeon-patriot.blogspot.com
    (not yet censored)

  • Wild Bill Alaska

    In response to Sambocus

    " Look for closer “cooperation “but with UN forces. That force that Obama made light of already exists, is trained and ready. They just will not be wearing American flag patches on their uniforms. "

    True,but they would still be wearing those pretty UN sky blue helmets that presents such a beautiful sight picture.

    I do not believe that the members of our military will stand for armed foreign troops on American soil regardless of what the current occupant of the oval office wants.So all of the above is a moot point.

  • RaymondE

    How is DHS able to purchase Ammo (with our tax dollars), to be used against us(??), when we the people are being shown massive shortages on Ammo. Most online retailers have backorders for months, even past the end of this year.

    The Ammo is part of the "Arms" package we have as our right. Perhaps a FOIA request for details on the purchase of all the Ammo and where they get it, when the purchase was ordered, and when it is to be delivered.

    We have the right to arms, that includes the Ammo.

  • lloyd revalee

    In the article the writer states "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?'

    I don't believe there is now, or ever has been, any doubt in the minds of people just what the word "arms" means, when cited in the Second Amendment: "he arms industry is a global business which manufactures weapons and military technology and equipment. It consists of commercial industry involved in research, development, production, and service of military material, equipment and facilities. Arms producing companies, also referred to as defense contractors or military industry, produce arms mainly for the armed forces of states. Departments of government also operate in the arms industry, buying and selling weapons, munitions and other military items. Products include guns, ammunition, missiles, military aircraft, military vehicles, ships, electronic systems, and more. The arms industry also conducts significant research and development."

    "Arms control is a term for restrictions upon the development, production, stockpiling, proliferation, and usage of weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction.[1] Arms control is typically exercised through the use of diplomacy which seeks to impose such limitations upon consenting participants through international treaties and agreements, although it may also comprise efforts by a nation or group of nations to enforce limitations upon a non-consenting country.

    Of course we always have those who try to make our Constitution appear to say something that it does not, to further some devious goal that they have in mind, or swing people over to their way of thinking. The right to bear arms means just that. The American people have the right to own weapons of sufficient size and number to protect their family and their property. And we need nothing more than the Second Amendment to tell us that.

    Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/using-the-third-amendment-in-defense-of-the-second-amendment/#ixzz2KfBl7yij

  • Sambocus

    While it may be unrealistic that an American soldier would have need to use your home, or that should this happen that it's unlikely one would denie them the hospitality in a time of true necessity. I feel that we will be dealing with U.N. soldiers, not our own Brothers and Sisters. Remember during

    the election that it was reported that there were United Nations Officials observers at some of the poles? Didn't that seem a little odd? Smell funny? Look for more transitioning into various other places and positions. Look for closer "cooperation "but with UN forces. That force that Obama made light of already exists, is trained and ready. They just will not be wearing American flag patches on their uniforms.

  • S. I. Harmon

    A more interesting Third Amendment use was proposed in Zelmon's book, HOPE.

    Quartered soldiers not only took over your house, but your possessions, your family, your food, and your ability to provide for your family. When they left, they usually left nothing the other side might use, either. The end result is poverty and denial of your right to property or your wealth you produced.

    Today, all of us are forced to support millions of bureaucrats, almost all of which are involved in promulgating and enforcing an ever increasing number of restrictive laws that are illegal under the Tenth. Worse, they are now taking on armed police powers, including SWAT Teams. Whether they live in my house or take 62% of what i made last year, the end result is the same. i have lost wealth, property, liberty, and my ability to provide for my family. Make no mistake: these government thugs are as ruthless as the Redcoats when it comes to how they see us and our property. Can anyone explain to me why USDA, Fish and Game, or the FDA have SWAT Teams? Just what kind of criminal behavior do they think Pfizer or Kraft have in mind that a simple warrant wouldn't address? When they raided Gibson, were they really expecting armed resistance? Whether it is a squad of soldiers in your home or supporting a horde of rapacious 'crats, the end result is the same.

    I suppose if we can take anything from this it is that they are getting really afraid of the people. No other reason explains the militarization of our police or the government's intent to disarm us all.

  • Kory Booth

    As a lawyer in three states and a member of the Supreme Court Bar, I have to say that I am impressed with the logic of the argument. I haven't done any research that might negate such an argument, but ostensibly it makes sense. I will pass along the idea to the NRA legal as well as the attorney we all have to thank for the recent decisions clarifying that we have individual rights to bear arms (as opposed to the militia arguments).

  • Michael Morrocco

    My questions to all People of our Great Country is: Why do we continue to put up with our current "president" if he continues to be deceitful to the citizens and our Constitution? Are his legislation, executive orders, policies and persistent lies not impeachable offenses? How about his Attorney General, giving weapons to foreigners then covering up the facts. How much longer are we going to put up with these pompous cretins? A catastrophe is a collection of many small events, each in itself inconvenient and seemingly irrelevant.

  • Rustytruck

    I love that comment " You can't win against a Soldier." Well, the facts are, most of us gun owners ARE Soldiers or at least Veterans who have the exact same training and have been Soldiers first so that statement is just stupid. Of course it comes out of the mouths of Liberals so I guess it's a matter of source. Dumbass Dems!!

  • Spoon

    Sound logic applied. Therefore, by utilizing 'common sense'...the author's point of view, however sound to you and me will be unintelligible to the Antis or they'll simply chose one of their many different defensive behaviors as they blatantly try and sweep yet another principle under the rug.

  • Mike Clark

    I think it is very unrealistic to even imagine that our own military or even DHS or Obama's own civilian army would never lay a hand on its own people. Even though you hear that DHS are buying up all these weapons , ammo armor piercing no less , to kill americans for what reason , because we wont listen to a Muslim President. Let me tell you the people in Washington seem to be scared to death of this guy Obama , I really don't understand why , unless they are all in with him. ICE ,who is a department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is the Boss , are suing Obama & Napolitano in Federal Court , for not allowing the Agents to perform their duty in apprehending Illegal Immigrants, which Obama & napolitano told them not to enforce . Obama took the oath of office as president to enforce all the laws on the books , Obama is not which is an impeachable offense.

  • BigIron

    The 3rd Amendment is irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment arguments.
    All that is needed is the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments.
    2nd A: ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is all that is relevant.
    "right": a lower-case "R" indicates that it is a particular "right", not ALL "rights".
    "people": a lower-case "P" indicates that it refers to the individual, not ALL the people.
    "Arms": an "upper-case" "A" indicates that it is the body of ALL arms, not just a particular type.
    "shall not be infringed": is a "prohibition" against interference with this "right".
    10th A: The United States: has only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution [thus no gun regulation powers at all]. The States: ".... powers not prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States, ..." .... the 2nd A contains a "prohibition" [so the States have no gun regulation powers at all].
    The result is that neither the United States nor the States have any Constitutionally delegated "power" to regulate the keeping and bearing of ANY type of arm by the individual people.
    9th A: "Rights" do NOT have to enumerated for the people to possess ALL of them (ALL "rights" are bestowed by our Creator). They are NOT "powers" which may be delegated by man to man. They are not "privileges" which are created and bestowed by man to man.
    The reason these particular "rights' were enumerated in the Constitution is that these particular "rights" would absolutely be required in order to secure ALL of our other "rights" ... "A well-ordered Militia being necessary to the security of a free State".

  • joe

    AMEN no one enters my house unless I say so ,, and I am armed ,,,,,,,,

  • SSG Robert Jewett USA ret.

    Hitler after tha Nazi had confiscated all the guns of the German people, organized his own special police. to protect the country from saboteurs and undesirables, this was his SS. Obama wants to confiscate all the guns, then have his special Police, "HSS enforce all of Obama's edicts. By this time he will be ruling under special powers bypassing Congress. no more elections, No more Bill of rights. The Constitution will be a forgotten rag. If the Constitution meant anything today, Obama would not have been allowed to run. An African who went to school using an Indonesian passport, and illegally used a dead persons SSN, because as a non citizen he did not have one of his own. He does not qualify under the Constitutional requirements to run for President.

  • http://-4=2 WASP

    "But in a manner to be prescribed by law"? Are you trying to tell me that that isn't an open invitation to tyranny? Who prescribes? The gummint. Who makes the law. The gummint. Who is the enemy? The gummint. What the h#!! kind of protection is that. The 2nd amendment protects the entire constitution, and every other law we have. Without Number Two, the rest of the constitution isn't worth the parchment it's written on.

  • SSG Robert Jewett USA ret.

    There is one 'Gotcha" that people are forgetting. this security check, for now, it is only the mentally ill, and Criminals who fail the security check.
    As their nefarious plans progress, this will be expanded to include all right wing radicals, such as members of the tea party, and members of the NRA. then any one who subscribes to "patriotic" web sites. Veterans, and members of "hate" groups who oppose gay marriage, and abortion such as Catholics and Born again Christians.
    What do you think the FEMA camps they are building are for?

  • Sama

    I had one from the left tell me that my 'right to bear arms" was my right to vote!!! My vote is my 'arms'. Can you believe the drivel?