[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

You are a terminal fool.

As I read this thread, the fool is you. Ebuddy's assertions about you are right on.

You are an elitist, flame-baiting tool.

[Peder Rice]

I would be inclined to concur. But it's silly to worry about it; everyone's an ass.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

my argument now is no longer against the Third per se, simply its being a separate Amendment.

Again: Why does it matter? Does it being a separate amendment cause some sort of harm or inconvenience? Are amendments an exhaustible resource?

[Cadaver]

Ulrich, the third amendment is still as exemplary as the others, I think. In Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, etc., how many soldiers are hiding/living in civilian homes? How many homes with children are being used as a weapons cache? From the sound of it, there are many examples where (other) governments press its people in to providing shelter for their troops. The 3rd amendment just guarantees that it can't happen in the US. Is it likely to happen, even without the amendment? No, probably not. Was it important when it was written? Yes. Is it still important today as an example to the rest of the world? Most certainly.

[Spliffdaddy]

Getting smacked-down = $ no charge

Getting back up, just to be smacked down again = $ no charge

Having it happen in a thread *you* created = $ priceless

[Dr Reducto]

I was going to say something but i forgot which one it was:

Stripping away our right to bear arms is horribly unconstitutional, but curtailing free speech and protection against search and seizure is necessary to reflect the changing world we live in

or

Curtailing free speech and protection against search and seizure is horribly unconstitutional, but stripping away our right to bear arms is necessary to reflect the changing world we live in

[ghporter]

I'd love to find a political party that didn't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to believe in... The Democrats don't like the Second Amendment, and the Republicans don't like parts of the First and most of the Fourth, and both hate certain parts of the basic Constitution itself.

[Chuckit]

Libertarians?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

Well, at least two of the Amendments:

The infamous Second Amendment: "Right for the people to keep and bear arms, as well as to maintain a militia"; and the lesser known but uniquely absurd Third Amendment: "Protection from quartering of troops": 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.

Can anyone explain why the Bill of Rights contains these two wartime-Amendments? The American Civil War ended in 1865. The Third is outrageous. Not only is it a waste of an Amendment, it amounts to an anachronism in the Constitution.

I know it may seem odd seeing that second amendment up on the shelf with all the fundamental freedoms, but these days, I'm grateful for it.

Soon we'll have to be fighting for our freedom against the right-wing theocracy that Bush and company are putting into place.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Libertarians?

Nope. For them, there would be no need for ANY of the amendments, because they wouldn't need rules as such. They'd just as soon do away with any sort of governmental meddling-so there would be no arbiter of the marketplace, no standards for safety and such to be met, etc. Pure libertarianism would be-at this point in time, anyway-pure chaos. We NEED government to keep the playing field level, to hold the powerful responsible for their actions, ensure that profit does not trump safety and security... Picture what we'd be like if there was no Pure Food and Drug Act, no limits on corporate power, no limits on monopoly...the powerful would be all-powerful and we'd be serfs, kind of like under the robber-barrons of the late 1800s.

I used to think the Libertarian Party was a good way to go for the whole country. Now, they're handy to have around so I can vote against the idiot Republican and the moron Democrat on the ticket.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Nope. For them, there would be no need for ANY of the amendments, because they wouldn't need rules as such. They'd just as soon do away with any sort of governmental meddling-so there would be no arbiter of the marketplace, no standards for safety and such to be met, etc. Pure libertarianism would be-at this point in time, anyway-pure chaos. We NEED government to keep the playing field level, to hold the powerful responsible for their actions, ensure that profit does not trump safety and security... Picture what we'd be like if there was no Pure Food and Drug Act, no limits on corporate power, no limits on monopoly...the powerful would be all-powerful and we'd be serfs, kind of like under the robber-barrons of the late 1800s.

I used to think the Libertarian Party was a good way to go for the whole country. Now, they're handy to have around so I can vote against the idiot Republican and the moron Democrat on the ticket.

Don't confuse the anarchists who see the Libertarian Party as a vehicle for eliminating government and Constitution for the libertarians who just wish that the Constitution would be adhered to literally.