Repeal the 3rd ammendment; allow soldiers to be quartered in private residences

[archicus]

The 3d amendment is the first affront to the military.

Why shouldn't the Army be allowed to take quarters in ANY home for ANY reason? Why does it need to be "prescribed by law"?

The original text;


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.

THIS IS AM ATTACK ON THE MILITARY BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

why else would they want to so limit the powers graned to the military?

First in war & peace, archicus

 

[ivantheterrible]

you are either stupid or bored.

 

[archicus]

you are either stupid or bored.

You remind me of Plato's cave allegory. When the ignorant are shown the truth, they will always resort to attacking.

Feel free to beat me, cavemen. I have seen the world. You have only seen shadows.

arch

 

[butters]

You remind me of Plato's cave allegory. When the ignorant are shown the truth, they will always resort to attacking.

Feel free to beat me, cavemen. I have seen the world. You have only seen shadows.

arch

hahahahahahahahaaaaaahahahahahahahaha

oh fffs... hahahahahahhaa

 

[Liar]

you are either stupid or bored.

Boring either which way.

 

[butters]

Boring either which way.

well it's making me laugh. maybe i'm easily pleased

 

[cjh]

Heh.

You must be bored out of your skull to go to such lengths.

It's spot on, though.

And funny.

 

[knot_sweet]

The 3d amendment is the first affront to the military.

Why shouldn't the Army be allowed to take quarters in ANY home for ANY reason? Why does it need to be "prescribed by law"?

The original text;


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.

THIS IS AM ATTACK ON THE MILITARY BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

why else would they want to so limit the powers graned to the military?

First in war & peace, archicus

No-one is allowed to reside in any house without the consent of the owner. It's called a tenenancy agreement. Living in a house without one is tantamount to squatting.

Why should soldiers be any different?

 

[butters]

*facepalm*

 

[NiceRPGuy]

The 3d amendment is the first affront to the military.

Why shouldn't the Army be allowed to take quarters in ANY home for ANY reason? Why does it need to be "prescribed by law"?

The original text;


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.

THIS IS AM ATTACK ON THE MILITARY BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

why else would they want to so limit the powers graned to the military?

First in war & peace, archicus

So, a couple of questions:

1. First, what is to be gained by having troops housed in the homes of civilians?
2. Second, why do you think this is an Executive Branch plot? It wasn't the Executive branch that came up with it, it was the "congress" of the times.

 

[archicus]

No-one is allowed to reside in any house without the consent of the owner. It's called a tenenancy agreement. Living in a house without one is tantamount to squatting.

Why should soldiers be any different?

~~~~~

Well "knot_sweet" I see that you are another liberal military hater.

Is it "SQUATTING" when the fire fighters come into fight the fire?

Our illegitamite "government" stole land and mules to give to the coloreds. THAT is squatting.

arch

 

[archicus]

So, a couple of questions:

1. First, what is to be gained by having troops housed in the homes of civilians?
2. Second, why do you think this is an Executive Branch plot? It wasn't the Executive branch that came up with it, it was the "congress" of the times.

~~~~~

haha liberal children make me smile, sheerly from their naivety.

Why?

Because the military keeps us from being safe. They are the only thing that stand in the way between us and Sharia Law.

 

[butters]

hang on, you're swerving a little over the line into busybodyparotty


*firefighters ... teehee*

 

[archicus]

hang on, you're swerving a little over the line into busybodyparotty


*firefighters ... teehee*

He is a good man. What the Left don't know is that they are a "parroty" of themselves,

archi

 

[butters]

He is a good man. What the Left don't know is that they are a "parroty" of themselves,

archi

get away with your shmoozing. ya think an e-flower's gonna make you right? well i poop on your e-rose! so there.

 

[archicus]

get away with your shmoozing. ya think an e-flower's gonna make you right? well i poop on your e-rose! so there.

~~~~~

That's suprising.

Usually the "poop" comes from the other end of a liberal.

arch

 

[phrodeau]

It's a pretty good amicus parody. There's even the occasional unsigned post.

 

[butters]

~~~~~

That's suprising.

Usually the "poop" comes from the other end of a liberal.

arch

*iggy!*

 

[butters]

It's a pretty good amicus parody. There's even the occasional unsigned post.

 

[knot_sweet]

~~~~~

Well "knot_sweet" I see that you are another liberal military hater.

Is it "SQUATTING" when the fire fighters come into fight the fire?

Confused soldier says wtf?

Temporary access to a property to prevent fire damage is "residing" since when?

By your argument, I, as a soldier, have the right to walk into any house and take up residency without anyone's consent, yes?

Does that include your house?

 

[archicus]

Confused soldier says wtf?

Temporary access to a property to prevent fire damage is "residing" since when?

By your argument, I, as a soldier, have the right to walk into any house and take up residency without anyone's consent, yes?

Does that include your house?

I live in section 8 housing. So the Army can quarter itself in my home at any time it wishes, per the HUAC.

I fully support that right.

arch

 

[knot_sweet]

I live in section 8 housing. So the Army can quarter itself in my home at any time it wishes, per the HUAC.

I fully support that right.

arch

Wow, that's all kinds of just plain wrong.

A military is supposed to protect/defend/serve the citizens of their country (other countries as deemed politically necessary), not exercise military might is right over the people.

Seriously, not cool.

 

[NiceRPGuy]

haha liberal children make me smile, sheerly from their naivety.

Where did you get the idea that I was a liberal from my questions...? Questions, by the way, that you didn't answer.

Because the military keeps us from being safe. They are the only thing that stand in the way between us and Sharia Law.

First, I am going to assume that you DIDN'T mean to say the military keeps us FROM being safe.

Second, it is the 250,000,000 guns in this country that are in the hands of civilians (according to the FBI) that keep this country safe FROM our army. Our army's job is to keep us safe from all of the guns in the hands of people OUTSIDE our country.

What do you think the 2nd amendment if all about? When the Constitution was being written, we had just departed a time in which King George and his Redcoats wouldn't allow most civilians to keep firearms because they feared rebellion, so the CIVILIANS who were creating the new government of the new country of the United States of America were not going to let that country restrict its rights to bear arms.

What happens when the troops are housed in the homes ... where the guns are kept? What happens when our government tries to infringe upon our rights ... and we try to rise up again ... and the troops in our homes HAVE our guns ...?

By the way, I own 5 fire arms and have, between them, more than 1,000 rounds in my home or at emergency locations at any one particular time. THAT is what's keeping this country safe ... my readiness to take on all enemies, foreign and domestic, just as in the oath I took when I joined the US Military.

Call me a liberal again and I'll feed your nuts to my pit bull.

 

[archicus]

Wow, that's all kinds of just plain wrong.

A military is supposed to protect/defend/serve the citizens of their country (other countries as deemed politically necessary), not exercise military might is right over the people.

Seriously, not cool.

~~~~~

Yes you have made it very clear that you are a Lefist that would sooner disband the Military then see out shore protected from foreign invasion.

"ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic"

Do your best to remember that Oath.

arch

 

[NiceRPGuy]

~~~~~

Yes you have made it very clear that you are a Lefist that would sooner disband the Military then see out shore protected from foreign invasion.

"ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic"

Do your best to remember that Oath.

arch

Wow, you are REALLY good at dancing around the issue. I haven't read ALL of the above posts, but I've read enough of them to see that you have swayed away from your original premise and are now only poking a sharp stick at people.

Why don't you try to support your argument? What about the second amendment? What about the reason why we don't have troops in our homes? How does having troops in our homes protect us from Sharia law? Really? Do you REALLY see a connection there? Do you REALLY think that if our country falls, it's going to fall to the Muslims (from ANY particular country)?

Why don't you put up ONE post with something intelligent in it. C'mon, I dare you. Support your argument, rather than just sticking out your tongue and saying, Nyaaa, I'm a bigger baby than all ya.