Using The Third Amendment In Defense Of The Second Amendment

[mcurrier]

Using The Third Amendment In Defense Of The Second Amendment

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/using-the-third-amendment-in-defense-of-the-second-amendment/#ixzz2KhzgjyRO

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It also makes a compelling argument backing the 2nd up with NFA being unconstitutional, but I'll bet you the usual sneers

from the peanut gallery will occur. :D I heard this mentioned the other day and haven't paid much attention, myself, in years.

 

Good piece, Mark! If it wasn't for you, with all the stuff you find, and Drudgereport, I'd be lost because my TV

is still turned off.

Edited February 12, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[mcurrier]

It also makes a compelling argument backing the 2nd up with NFA being unconstitutional, but I'll bet you the usual sneers

from the peanut gallery will occur. :D I heard this mentioned the other day and haven't paid much attention, myself, in years.

 

Good piece, Mark! If it wasn't for you, with all the stuff you find, and Drudgereport, I'd be lost because my TV

is still turned off.

 

What is this 't v' that you speak of?  I will be at the range tonight (IDPA).

[Guest PapaB]

What is this 't v' that you speak of?  I will be at the range tonight (IDPA).

 

't v' = Tennessee Valley.

 

Another question successfuly answered.

Edited February 13, 2013 by PapaB

[Guest PapaB]

The argument made by the writer was interesting but invalid imho. Any argument based on a bad premise is a bad argument. If they looked at the historical reasoning and need for the 3rd Amendment, they may have realized in doesn't support the 2nd. In fact the reverse is true. The 2nd Amendment isn't subjucated to the 3rd, the 3rd is possible only because of the 2nd. This is the opposite of their argument. When it is said that the 2nd Amendment is the lynchpin of the Bill of Rights, it's not just a catchy phrase. If the 2nd is taken away, the other 9 can be dismantled but as long as the 2nd stands, it allows for the defense of the others. Because it makes the 2nd Amendment subservient to the 3rd, the article, and the argument it makes, weakens our position while claiming to try to strengthen it.

 

This is just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I hadn't thought about it like that. Thanks, PapaB. Arguments, to be sound, have to based on the right premise. It's probably

your reasoning that there has been an assault on the 2nd for so long. Makes sense, anyway. You tend to make me think a bit

longer on these things after I read your opinion. Thanks.

[KaNuckles]

The argument made by the writer was interesting but invalid imho. Any argument based on a bad premise is a bad argument. If they looked at the historical reasoning and need for the 3rd Amendment, they may have realized in doesn't support the 2nd. In fact the reverse is true. The 2nd Amendment isn't subjucated to the 3rd, the 3rd is possible only because of the 2nd. This is the opposite of their argument. When it is said that the 2nd Amendment is the lynchpin of the Bill of Rights, it's not just a catchy phrase. If the 2nd is taken away, the other 9 can be dismantled but as long as the 2nd stands, it allows for the defense of the others. Because it makes the 2nd Amendment subservient to the 3rd, the article, and the argument it makes, weakens our position while claiming to try to strengthen it.

 

This is just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

IDK...It seems to me like he got it right. I think what he is saying is that without the second then the others are gone, too. Just like you said. I think he is just using the 3rd as evidence that the second isn't reserved for hunters. Because you couldn't enforce the other 9, especially the 3rd, if you weren't at least as well armed as the soldier(s) whom you'd be enforcing it a against. 

[mcurrier]

I think he is also saying regarding the 3rd, that if the People/Citizens/Civilians are the Militia who are mentioned in the 2nd, then the 3rd is speaking about the quartering of soldiers who are not the Militia in private homes, thereby proving that the People who live in and own those homes are, again, the Militia mentioned in the 2nd, not the professional soldiers mentioned in the 3rd.  Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment would need not exist if there were not a distinct and separate group, e.g. Militia vs. Professional Soldier, if the soldiers were supposed to be considered the "militia", for it would be a given that they would be supplied/provided arms by the govt. or establishing entity.  Since the Militia is mentioned completely separate from soldiers, it is thereby deduced that the soldiers are NOT the Militia, but the Citizens are.

[KaNuckles]

I think he is also saying regarding the 3rd, that if the People/Citizens/Civilians are the Militia who are mentioned in the 2nd, then the 3rd is speaking about the quartering of soldiers who are not the Militia in private homes, thereby proving that the People who live in and own those homes are, again, the Militia mentioned in the 2nd, not the professional soldiers mentioned in the 3rd.  Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment would need not exist if there were not a distinct and separate group, e.g. Militia vs. Professional Soldier, if the soldiers were supposed to be considered the "militia", for it would be a given that they would be supplied/provided arms by the govt. or establishing entity.  Since the Militia is mentioned completely separate from soldiers, it is thereby deduced that the soldiers are NOT the Militia, but the Citizens are.

Nice...

[RED333]

Well, as I read all this I stand by, WE MUST STAND AS ONE.

We must Defend them all, every last one.

[Randall53]

My head is spinning..... :crazy:

[East_TN_Patriot]

Interesting commentary, but I think the author made a huge leap in logic to make the argument work. It assumes that the Founders intended the people to use arms as a first resort in the face of government overreach, not a last resort, which is the intent as explained in the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were always clear that the political process and courts are the primary means for addressing grievances against the government, not armed force. Edited February 14, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest PapaB]

I think he is also saying regarding the 3rd, that if the People/Citizens/Civilians are the Militia who are mentioned in the 2nd, then the 3rd is speaking about the quartering of soldiers who are not the Militia in private homes, thereby proving that the People who live in and own those homes are, again, the Militia mentioned in the 2nd, not the professional soldiers mentioned in the 3rd.  Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment would need not exist if there were not a distinct and separate group, e.g. Militia vs. Professional Soldier, if the soldiers were supposed to be considered the "militia", for it would be a given that they would be supplied/provided arms by the govt. or establishing entity.  Since the Militia is mentioned completely separate from soldiers, it is thereby deduced that the soldiers are NOT the Militia, but the Citizens are.

 

The 3rd Amendment says;

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.

 

One flaw in his premise is this statement. "For if a soldier demands to be quartered in your home, how do you respond?" A soldier wouldn't demand to be quartered, the government would make the demand. Could they lawfully do so? According to the 3rd Amendment, yes. The Government only needs to first declare war, and then require the quartering of soldiers. The 3rd only blocks quartering in time of peace. I'm sure the Founding Fathers, who were very aware of the problems of a tyrannical government, knew what they allowed for in the 3rd.

 

The writer also said;

"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."

 

Again, I disagree. If the soldier wasn't commanded to take over your house he's just another home invader and isn't covered by the 3rd Amendment. The second part of his statement is only true in time of peace.

 

The 2nd needs to exist to affirm the RTKBA, it's not just about militia's, and it only properly defends the 3rd in time of peace. Militia's, in the broadest sense, haven't been defined as comprising "all citizens" that I know of. It is generally comprised of able bodied men (and not women) of certain ages. Being disabled, I would not be considered part of a militia as usually described in the time of the Founding Fathers. I am still, however, protected by the 2nd Amendment, as are women and children.

 

I think the writer was trying to be clever and make a point that could be made, but not by him evidently. Using flawed arguments and invalid premises is not the way to go about it. All of the bill of rights supports the need for the 2nd Amendment because they would all fall without it. The 3rd doesn't lend itself to proving that point because it can be Constitutionally voided in effect by simply declaring war and passing one law. At that point, the 2nd would have nothing left (of the 3rd) to defend.

Edited February 15, 2013 by PapaB