3 ms·
How about because: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infri
by NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
How about because:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
... is no longer either a true or useful statement?
I think I'm probably happy to toss the Third Amendment on a similar basis:
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.
Does this speak to the problems that the republic faces today, any more so than does the Second?
- barrenko 4y agoThe first sentence is and will always be true.
- mLuby 4y agoJust because the third amendment doesn't invoked doesn't mean we should lose that protection. It's #3 for a reason. Wait till some general presents innovative cost-cutting measures called something like "homes for heroes" that no patriotic American could object to.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoIt's #3 because of the Quartering Acts; relating to a very specific set of facts during the Revolutionary War. Consider for a moment that if General Gage hadn't persuaded the British Parliament of the need to amend the Mutiny Act to require American towns to provide food and shelter to British troops, then this amendment would never have been passed. It was passed because of what was top-of-mind for the writers in the 1780s. It's dead letter. There has been one case on it in 200 years.
- mLuby 4y agos/dead letter/stable and working as intended/ Yep, the context is interesting. Hopefully we'll never see quartering again but as the saying goes: history rhymes.