It is only thought to be anachronistic by you because the government isn't trying to quarter troops, FBI, ATF or NG units in peoples' homes. )and the reason their not trying is in the amendment right above it.)
If they were trying to quarter troops, I'm sure you'd be arguing that it was a collective right for the government to be able to quarter troops, or that the FBI or ATF would somehow not be the same thing as troops, or some other such nonsense.
Commader: “Sir, my troops are tired, you are going to have to provide them quarter, food, and do their laundry.”
Homeowner: “Oh no, I’m not! The constitution specifically protects me from this exact thing!”
Commander: “Sir, the Third Amendment, like all rights, is not absolute. It is a collective right that applies to Homeowner Associations- not you, an individual landowner.”
Mike, what would getting rid of the “anachronistic” Third mean? That the government IS allowed to quarter troops in citizen’s homes?
TS, Getting rid of the 3rd Amendment would mean nothing at all. Just like retaining it means nothing at all. Some anachronisms are total.
Quartering troops in private homes was an idea that only had relevence in the late 18th century and before, at least in these here United States.
In a similar way, the 2nd Amendment has no relevence in todays world, except that a small percantage of the population backed by powerful lobbies has manipulated the interpretation.
That's the reality, and as FWM said, I have to live with it. But I don't have to say it's right or that it makes sense.
And Anonymous, you must be out of your mind if you think the reason the government is not trying to quarter troops in private homes is due to the fact that people are armed and would not stand for it. Are you that obsessed with guns that you see everything in terms of them, even when it ends up a bizarre picture like that?
What about the third amendment supporters?
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't get the attention that it deserves: after all it's third. Coming in third will get you a prize in most contests.
Even though the Second Amendment supporters, don't admit (or know) it--the third is closely related to the Second.
So, I want to hear more about how politicians will promote my third amendment rights.
Laci
Laci,
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid your garden variety politician probably doesn't even know what the third amendment is.
Laci, that is because the third amendment is universally respected. If it weren’t, you bet you would hear some stink about it.
ReplyDeleteTS, You mean universally understood to be anachronistic, which is the way the 2nd should be understood.
ReplyDeleteIt is only thought to be anachronistic by you because the government isn't trying to quarter troops, FBI, ATF or NG units in peoples' homes. )and the reason their not trying is in the amendment right above it.)
ReplyDeleteIf they were trying to quarter troops, I'm sure you'd be arguing that it was a collective right for the government to be able to quarter troops, or that the FBI or ATF would somehow not be the same thing as troops, or some other such nonsense.
I am having a vision:
ReplyDeleteCommader: “Sir, my troops are tired, you are going to have to provide them quarter, food, and do their laundry.”
Homeowner: “Oh no, I’m not! The constitution specifically protects me from this exact thing!”
Commander: “Sir, the Third Amendment, like all rights, is not absolute. It is a collective right that applies to Homeowner Associations- not you, an individual landowner.”
Mike, what would getting rid of the “anachronistic” Third mean? That the government IS allowed to quarter troops in citizen’s homes?
TS, Getting rid of the 3rd Amendment would mean nothing at all. Just like retaining it means nothing at all. Some anachronisms are total.
ReplyDeleteQuartering troops in private homes was an idea that only had relevence in the late 18th century and before, at least in these here United States.
In a similar way, the 2nd Amendment has no relevence in todays world, except that a small percantage of the population backed by powerful lobbies has manipulated the interpretation.
That's the reality, and as FWM said, I have to live with it. But I don't have to say it's right or that it makes sense.
And Anonymous, you must be out of your mind if you think the reason the government is not trying to quarter troops in private homes is due to the fact that people are armed and would not stand for it. Are you that obsessed with guns that you see everything in terms of them, even when it ends up a bizarre picture like that?
Yeah, that MUST be it, MikeB. You're on to something there, I think.
ReplyDelete