The third amendment (the first ten were afterthoughts or the agreed upon additions that made the Constitution acceptable) reads, “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.”


Could one imagine in today’s world the quartering of a soldier in any house for any functional military reason?  But a serious point made here is “but in a manner prescribed by law.”  


If prescribed by law, as indicated here a soldier could be quartered in my home without my consent.


The second amendment requires that “a well regulated Militia being necessary in the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,  shall not be infringed.” 


The question arises, is the Militia the people or should the people bear arms in their forming of a Militia in their security, a war against their own constitutionally establish government?


Would that mean that upon returning from war abroad that I could keep my gun as I was released from the military to join a different but well regulated Militia ready to fight against the government I had just fought for?


In the introductory sentience to the Constitution the words “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for common defence” appear significantly in a list indicating the Constitution’s purpose.


These precautions related to an independent Militia as it was referred to seems linked to a paranoia developed by some of the military related experiences of those times.  Do the thoughts expressed within those described notions have the same relative and practical significance or any reality in today’s circumstances? 

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools