# Must We Quarter Soldiers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867 "2010-04-04T00:20:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/1 "2010-04-04T00:20:19Z")
There has been much debate here and elsewhere that the 2nd amendment is archaic and outdated. Let’s just assume that is the case. (I’m not conceding that, but just for discussion) If so, can we just will it away because we don’t like it anymore? Can we take the third amendment in the same context? I think that we would all agree that this amendment is a total non-issue in this day and time and that we are in no danger of the government forcing us to house soldiers in peace time, or during wartime in a non-lawful manner. So, since it is outmoded, can we ignore it? Could Congress pass a law forcing individual households to give a soldier a bed for the night? If not, then why is the third amendment different from the second? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/2 "2010-04-04T00:28:16Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > There has been much debate here and elsewhere that the 2nd amendment is archaic and outdated. Let’s just assume that is the case. (I’m not conceding that, but just for discussion) > > If so, can we just will it away because we don’t like it anymore? Of course not. Who’s saying that it can? > [@jtgain](#): > > So, since it is outmoded, can we ignore it? Could Congress pass a law forcing individual households to give a soldier a bed for the night? Not and make it stick. > [@jtgain](#): > > If not, then why is the third amendment different from the second? It’s not getting people killed. Nor is it obsolete as the 2nd is IMHO; weaponry and war have changed a great deal, but being forced to quarter soldiers would still be as obnoxious as ever. I’ll also point out that wanting to get rid of an Amendment, or claiming it is being interpreted wrong, or claiming that it is stupid are not at all the same as saying it can just be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/3 "2010-04-04T00:52:26Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] It’s not getting people killed. Nor is it obsolete as the 2nd is IMHO; weaponry and war have changed a great deal, but being forced to quarter soldiers would still be as obnoxious as ever. [/QUOTE] The key here is the ‘IMHO’, since it’s fairly obvious that it really isn’t outmoded, seeing as how the majority of your fellow citizens would disagree with you. 😛 > [@](#): > > I’ll also point out that wanting to get rid of an Amendment, or claiming it is being interpreted wrong, or claiming that it is stupid are not at all the same as saying it can just be ignored. True. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/4 "2010-04-04T00:57:12Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@\*\*jtgain](#): > > > > \*\*There has been much debate here and elsewhere that the 2nd amendment is archaic and outdated. Let’s just assume that is the case. (I’m not conceding that, but just for discussion) > > > > If so, can we just will it away because we don’t like it anymore? > > Of course not. Who’s saying that it can? Well in this thread: [How is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=558263) > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > \<…\>We are not, as some dearly believe, bound by the understandings of the 18th century\<…\>If you can show that the world, and the nation, hasn’t changed in two and a half centuries, so that meanings from that long ago still apply, go right ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/5 "2010-04-04T01:02:12Z")
I see a major distinction between the two. People who argue that the second amendment is outdated are arguing that its current enforcement (especially if it’s incorporated) is **dangerous** , in addition to being unnecessary. They argue that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary, and the right to keep and bear arms is, when unrestricted, a dangerous right. The third amendment may be unnecessary, but nobody claims that its current enforcement is dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/6 "2010-04-04T01:02:26Z")
I suppose we could treat it the same way that we treat other “blue” laws that are old and outdated but difficult to repeal- we could ignore it, and everyone could implicitly agree not to object. But the instant someone objected, I can’t imagine that the Court would rule against the Second Amendment. As a side note, Congress is perfectly free to pass a law forcing people to quarter soldiers or give up their guns. However, the instant that they try to enforce the law, the SCOTUS will make them repeal it. The only possible way to nullify the Second Amendment is through passing another amendment. However, the only way you’d ever be able to pass something so politically poisonous is if everyone joins hands, sings “Kumbaya”, and stops shooting one another. Then people will feel pretty safe, and you might be able to scrape together the supermajority you’d need to pass an amendment. But if no one were shooting one another, why would we bother repealing it? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/7 "2010-04-04T01:05:42Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The key here is the ‘IMHO’, since it’s fairly obvious that it really isn’t outmoded, seeing as how the majority of your fellow citizens would disagree with you. 😛 And they are wrong. Personal weapons don’t discourage any government from being tyrannical, nor do they make the country less safe. And reality isn’t a matter of popular vote; so numbers don’t matter. If one side is right, then the people who disagree with it are wrong regardless of if there are one or millions of them. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/8 "2010-04-04T01:08:20Z")
Did the actions of both sides in the Civil War, by commandeering foodstuffs, parking a brigade in the lower pasture, and the generals setting up headquarters in the most comfortable house in town that hadn’t been blown to bits, amount to quartering soldiers? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/9 "2010-04-04T01:09:51Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Personal weapons don’t discourage any government from being tyrannical, nor do they make the country less safe. [/QUOTE] Well, I disagree with your premise here, but what’s that got to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms? > [@](#): > > And reality isn’t a matter of popular vote; so numbers don’t matter. 😛 > [@](#): > > If one side is right, then the people who disagree with it are wrong regardless of if there are one or millions of them. Ah…well, if it’s a matter of Right or Wrong and all. I see, I see…glad you cleared that up! -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/10 "2010-04-04T01:12:43Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Did the actions of both sides in the Civil War, by commandeering foodstuffs, parking a brigade in the lower pasture, and the generals setting up headquarters in the most comfortable house in town that hadn’t been blown to bits, amount to quartering soldiers? “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.” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/11 "2010-04-04T02:42:21Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, I disagree with your premise here, but what’s that got to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms? That’s one of the standard lines used to defend the “necessity” of gun ownership, not to mention the subject of the thread this one derives from. Obviously. > [@xtisme](#): > > 😛 Are you going to claim that reality is a matter of majority vote? > [@xtisme](#): > > Ah…well, if it’s a matter of Right or Wrong and all. I see, I see…glad you cleared that up! Right as in “correct”, and erroneous, as in factually incorrect. Again, obviously, despite your attempts to distort what I am saying. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/12 "2010-04-04T02:55:58Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Are you going to claim that reality is a matter of majority vote? [/QUOTE] No, of course not. There have been many times where the majority opinion on something is, in retrospect, found to be completely wrong (the whole slavery thingy springs to mind, for instance). I just found the irony a bit overwhelming. > [@](#): > > That’s one of the standard lines used to defend the “necessity” of gun ownership, not to mention the subject of the thread this one derives from. Obviously. That’s true, but you will note that I didn’t bring it up, ehe? > [@](#): > > Right as in “correct”, and erroneous, as in factually incorrect. Again, obviously, despite your attempts to distort what I am saying. Man, I don’t need to distort what you are saying. 😉 Whether things are erroneous or factually incorrect is sometimes in the eyes of the beholder. -XT ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/13 "2010-04-04T03:17:54Z")
a) I don’t think we should find it necessary to quarter soldiers. A simple shot to the head seems much simpler. Drawing and quartering is so 15th century. b) My feelings on the whole 2nd Amendment issue vary depending on my mood. Sometimes I think the quickest way to world peace would be to issue every person over the age of 8 their own thermonuclear warhead with EZ-fire detonator attached. Other times I’m more inclined to think that I’d never see the next sunrise. The 2nd Amendment is apparently not currently interpreted to mean that individuals can own any firepower that they wish to own, even if that was the original effect in the 1700s; and the types of weaponry permitted to US Citizens in no way protects them from being overwhelmed by our own military forces, were it ever to come to that, nor would they be of much use in repelling invaders from yon foreign lands if our military were slow to ride to the rescue. If the modern purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow people hunting equipment for recreational and subsistence hunting, some of the firearms legally sold would seem to be outside of that purview; if the modern purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow people to possess defensive weaponry to protect hearth and home against burglars, drug dealers, and pushy insurance salesfolk, the law’s current interpretations seem more appropriate. Meanwhile, to take away ANY right, there should be a compelling reason. It is a bad thing to go around curtailing citizens’ rights for no reason other than “I fail to see a reason why you’d need to own one of those”. The typical reason given for wanting to curtail 2nd Amendment rights is that widespread firearm possession had led to a trigger-happy society with lots of gun violence and gun deaths. Some people making this argument would like to eliminate certain specific firearms from the list of legally obtainable weapons, while leaving other models alone; others making the argument would like to restrict firearm possession to only certain qualified _people_, either by creating new categories of folks who aren’t allowed to buy own them or by creating new categories of folks OUTSIDE of which no one can buy or own them. I think all such people should rent Michael Moore’s _Bowling for Columbine_ and watch it until the message sinks in. Yeah, Michael freaking MOORE says that gun ownership on a similar scale elsewhere (e.g. Canada) has not caused a parallel gun violence problem, ergo the cause of gun violence in the US is not the existence & availability of firearms. Mmkay? What do I think, really? I think to own a firearm you should have to take a firearms safety course, such as the ones offered by the NRA, and take & pass a test afterwards. I think firearms should be registered. I think the so-called “shall issue” standard should apply for all who do so (if you take the course and pass the test, you GET to obtain a license, not subject to any other review). If they can find a way to “fingerprint” ammunition itself, and record all ammo sales, without making the ammo unsafe or discernably more expensive, I’m amendable to laws phasing in a requirment for such tags on all ammo. I’m not at all convinced that trying to make it difficult to obtain guns legally is ever going to have more than a very tiny effect on gun violence, and whatever effect it does have could only happen at the expense of also affecting a lot of law-abiding people and that’s not a very good trade-off. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/14 "2010-04-04T03:58:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The key here is the ‘IMHO’, since it’s fairly obvious that it really isn’t outmoded, seeing as how the majority of your fellow citizens would disagree with you. 😛 When was the last time your state has needed an ad hoc militia force made up of random, sworn up citizen bringing their own [del]matchlocks[/del]Glocks to drive away roving bands of marauders, desperadoes and furriners ? Unless your state borders Canada of course. Then you’d need guns to keep them in check, of course 😃 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/15 "2010-04-04T04:25:15Z")
[QUOTE=Kobal2] When was the last time your state has needed an ad hoc militia force made up of random, sworn up citizen bringing their own matchlocksGlocks to drive away roving bands of marauders, desperadoes and furriners ? [/QUOTE] Lucky I live in the US…and in New Mexico, where we don’t really have floods, hurricanes, nasty earth quakes or assorted other stuff like that, ehe? The National Guard (a ‘militia’ force) DOES do more than repel furriners, however…and the US is big enough to not have to really worry about either foreign or domestic enemies, in general. Sadly, not everyone lives in the US, however. > [@](#): > > Unless your state borders Canada of course. Then you’d need guns to keep them in check, of course Happily, I am in no real danger from the Canadian hordes, coming across the border to rape our sheep or steal our children. Sadly, there is Mexico, which is a bit more of a threat… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/16 "2010-04-04T04:32:49Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > There has been much debate here and elsewhere that the 2nd amendment is archaic and outdated. Let’s just assume that is the case. (I’m not conceding that, but just for discussion) > > If so, can we just will it away because we don’t like it anymore? > > Can we take the third amendment in the same context? I think that we would all agree that this amendment is a total non-issue in this day and time and that we are in no danger of the government forcing us to house soldiers in peace time, or during wartime in a non-lawful manner. > > So, since it is outmoded, can we ignore it? Could Congress pass a law forcing individual households to give a soldier a bed for the night? > > If not, then why is the third amendment different from the second? Who says we should ignore the 2nd Amendment? Cite? Support your premise. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/17 "2010-04-04T04:36:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Happily, I am in no real danger from the Canadian hordes, coming across the border to rape our sheep or steal our children. Idaho, Utah, New Mexico. Hardly any distance at all. However, I’m not sure what the fact that the National Guard does more than fight foreign wars has to do with my supposed right to carry military arms. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/18 "2010-04-04T04:54:40Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] However, I’m not sure what the fact that the National Guard does more than fight foreign wars has to do with my supposed right to carry military arms. [/QUOTE] Well, afaik, there is no ‘right to carry military arms’…there is simply a ‘right to bear arms’ (which, I always found funny, picturing someone with a wheelbarrow full of, um, ursine appendages I guess). The Amendment in question has two parts, and I believe the focus of the thread cited in the OP was about the first part, dealing with a ‘well regulated militia’. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/19 "2010-04-04T05:02:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > … ‘right to bear arms’ … Well, if a well-regulated militia is allowed to bear arms, why doesn’t the Missouri National Guard have nukes? Ah, screw it, I’m not in the mood for this tonight. For some reason, I seem to be more in “argue with morons” than “argue with smart people” mode this evening. Perhaps I can find someone in Cafe Society talking up “Dynasty” now that John Forsythe has died. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/20 "2010-04-04T05:06:47Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] Well, if a well-regulated militia is allowed to bear arms, why doesn’t the Missouri National Guard have nukes? [/QUOTE] Sorry…no idea what you are getting at here. Well regulated doesn’t mean ‘has every conceivable military weapon available, including nukes and death rays’, it simply means that it’s under government (presumably Missouri’s) control, and in good order. Hope your fight in CS goes well…give those guys hell! 🙂 -XT [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867.md?page=2)