Be careful when you play games by adding words that don’t exist in the original context. They can come back to bite you in the ass.
What part of “and every other terrible implement” is unclear to these people? Why is it only muskets are covered by the 2nd, but the Internet is covered by the 1st? Why can these people not comprehend that back when the 2nd was written, people owned cannons and fleets of armed merchant ships? Personally owned, mind you – not state owned.
Advertisement
Comments
Ostensibly, the 3rd amendment protects not just against the costs of quartering troops, but also against the surveillance.
Government monitoring of computers violates a reasonable reading of the 3rd amendment. Goverment tracking by GPS, or automated toll RFID chips, or by having enough cameras to track a person, also violates a reasonable reading of the 3rd amendment.
Government monitoring of computers violates a reasonable reading of the 3rd amendment. Goverment tracking by GPS, or automated toll RFID chips, or by having enough cameras to track a person, also violates a reasonable reading of the 3rd amendment.
dustydog,
I'm sorry. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I just don't see that. Do you have an explanation of how that works?
s
I'm sorry. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I just don't see that. Do you have an explanation of how that works?
s
Stuart,
I've heard this argument before. Basically, it boils down to troops being quartered specifically in the homes of people suspected of disloyalty to the crown as a crude form of spying, therefore the government spying on it's own citizens violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the 3rd Amendment.
I've heard this argument before. Basically, it boils down to troops being quartered specifically in the homes of people suspected of disloyalty to the crown as a crude form of spying, therefore the government spying on it's own citizens violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the 3rd Amendment.
re: muskets - call their bluff.
Let me purchase and open carry a muzzle loaded rifle without any legal hurdles or harassment from authorities.
When the city cop asks me WTF I'm doing with a musket slug over my shoulder at the bus stop, I'll just explain Piers Morgan said it was cool.
Let me purchase and open carry a muzzle loaded rifle without any legal hurdles or harassment from authorities.
When the city cop asks me WTF I'm doing with a musket slug over my shoulder at the bus stop, I'll just explain Piers Morgan said it was cool.
Get the right high-priced legal mouthpiece and the right panel of judges and you can make any Ammendment mean anything Your Betters would like so they can pass laws to control you.
If it were in their interests, I'm sure cameras could be interpreted as being covered in the Third. But no. That is not in Your Betters' best interest.
If it were in their interests, I'm sure cameras could be interpreted as being covered in the Third. But no. That is not in Your Betters' best interest.
Sean,
That could either go perfectly fine, or end you up in morgue/jail/on psych-hold. The problem is that it's a complete crap-shoot as to which it would be. I would love to see someone who is not already "damaged" (and therefore easy to write off by the media) do this to see what kind of conversation would come of it, but the negative possibilities are pretty serious for that to happen.
s
That could either go perfectly fine, or end you up in morgue/jail/on psych-hold. The problem is that it's a complete crap-shoot as to which it would be. I would love to see someone who is not already "damaged" (and therefore easy to write off by the media) do this to see what kind of conversation would come of it, but the negative possibilities are pretty serious for that to happen.
s
Dave,
Thanks. I would love to see some of the background on this. Does anyone know if any of the framers wrote about this?
s
Thanks. I would love to see some of the background on this. Does anyone know if any of the framers wrote about this?
s
Then they'd just pop you for the bayonet. And I ain't carrying a musket without a bayonet.
@ATLien
No, no, no. They would pop you for the bayonet LUG.
At least, they would under the NEW "Assault Weapons Ban".
No, no, no. They would pop you for the bayonet LUG.
At least, they would under the NEW "Assault Weapons Ban".
Friends:
Come to Texas. The statute is quite clear. It is PERFECTLY legal to walk down the street with a shoulder slung AR 15, or an AKM. Also legal is carriage of a bolt-action Model 70 or an Ithaca Model 37. If you dont point it at anyone, you will not be molested legally.
I'm sad for all of you whose overlords will not permit them to publicly carry their longarms - indeed a sampling of the " terrible Implements of a soldier".
Regards
GKT
Come to Texas. The statute is quite clear. It is PERFECTLY legal to walk down the street with a shoulder slung AR 15, or an AKM. Also legal is carriage of a bolt-action Model 70 or an Ithaca Model 37. If you dont point it at anyone, you will not be molested legally.
I'm sad for all of you whose overlords will not permit them to publicly carry their longarms - indeed a sampling of the " terrible Implements of a soldier".
Regards
GKT
The Jack
says:
Pyrotek85 advances such as the caplock happened durring the founders lives.
And the cap and ball revolver came about within living memory or ratification.
You could argue that those changes are even in firearms development than the latter changes to metalic cartridges.
And yet, there wasn't ever the thought that only flintlocks counted back then.
And the cap and ball revolver came about within living memory or ratification.
You could argue that those changes are even in firearms development than the latter changes to metalic cartridges.
And yet, there wasn't ever the thought that only flintlocks counted back then.
Comments have been closed on this topic.
If anything, it would have been harder for them to imagine the Internet and social media, yet those are still covered by the 1st as you mentioned.