# 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:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/61 "2010-04-06T20:00:31Z")
I don’t see the reason for a law as being inseperable from the meaning of law. The right to own firearms may have originally been created in order for white men to form paramilitary organizations. But the right exists even if there is no longer any need for those organizations. Let’s say there is a street in our town that has a school. We argue that because of the school we want a 20 mph speed limit on that street and enact such a law. A few years later the school closes. The original reason for the speed limit no longer exists but the speed limit is still valid unless we specifically repeal it. The second amendment says: _“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”_ not _“As long as a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”_. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/62 "2010-04-06T20:12:49Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Nope. This argument has already been raised before the Supreme Court, and found unpersuasive (_Eldred v. Ashcroft_). Overstating a wee bit, aren’t you? [Here:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft) > [@](#): > > However, the major argument for the act that carried over into the case was that the Constitution specified that Congress only needed to set time limits for copyright, the length of which was left to their discretion. Thus, as long as the limit is not “forever,” any limit set by Congress can be deemed constitutional. Nowhere did the Court say anything about part of the Constitution not meaning anything. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/63 "2010-04-06T20:15:04Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t see the reason for a law as being inseperable from the meaning of law. The right to own firearms may have originally been created in order for white men to form paramilitary organizations. But the right exists even if there is no longer any need for those organizations. You do not address whether it’s a collective right, to have a well-regulated militia, or an individual right, to cold dead fingers, that persists. That’s what the argument that the first half of that single sentence has no effect is based on. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/64 "2010-04-06T20:16:03Z")
One could, of course, argue that all individuals have the right to bear arms, and that the way an individual should exercise that right is to join his local militia. The substance of the amendment, then, would be that the militias are not allowed to turn away any recruits who want to join. ---
**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 6, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/65 "2010-04-06T21:25:07Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] One could, of course, argue that all individuals have the right to bear arms, and that the way an individual should exercise that right is to join his local militia. The substance of the amendment, then, would be that the militias are not allowed to turn away any recruits who want to join. [/QUOTE] Except you are forgetting that they have the right to KEEP and bear arms. So…I have the right to keep them (i.e. for my personal use) and I have the right to bear them (i.e. I can’t be denied the right to join the military). -XT ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/66 "2010-04-06T21:55:45Z")
> [@](#): > > You do not address whether it’s a collective right, to have a well-regulated militia, or an individual right, to cold dead fingers, that persists. That’s what the argument that the first half of that single sentence has no effect is based on. It being a collective right seems unlikely. If “the people” only have a right to keep and bear arms at the time when they are serving in a militia, then the effective result is the government has the right to arm the people. That seems an unusual thing to enshrine as a right. It’s like saying the government has the right to deliver mail or operate the courts. Governments have always had a right to raise troops. The fact that the right to bear arms was including in the Bill of Rights seems to me to mean that it was seen as a non-governmental right - one that people held as individual citizens not as government agents. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/67 "2010-04-06T21:59:16Z")
> [@](#): > > One could, of course, argue that all individuals have the right to bear arms, and that the way an individual should exercise that right is to join his local militia. The substance of the amendment, then, would be that the militias are not allowed to turn away any recruits who want to join. I’ve heard this argument made before. It says that the second amendment would prohibit policies like “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” because the government cannot restrict the right of gays to join the armed forces. Similarly, past restrictions on blacks, women, and native americans serving were also unconstitutional. It’s an interesting argument but, as far as I know, it’s never been the basis of any court rulings. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/68 "2010-04-06T22:08:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Except you are forgetting that they have the right to KEEP and bear arms. So…I have the right to keep them (i.e. for my personal use) and I have the right to bear them (i.e. I can’t be denied the right to join the military). Not necessarily. I have a number of pieces of software on my computers that I have a right to keep by virtue of the licensing agreements my alma mater had, even though I no longer attend that school. But I did have to attend that school at some point to have the right get them. > [@](#): > > I’ve heard this argument made before. It says that the second amendment would prohibit policies like “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” because the government cannot restrict the right of gays to join the armed forces. Or at least, it would prevent the militias from instituting a policy similar to DADT. Applicability to the federal armed forces would probably have to be decided by the courts, since the Founding Fathers didn’t really anticipate a strong permanent federal standing military. ---
**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 6, 2010, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/69 "2010-04-06T22:46:59Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] Not necessarily. I have a number of pieces of software on my computers that I have a right to keep by virtue of the licensing agreements my alma mater had, even though I no longer attend that school. But I did have to attend that school at some point to have the right get them. [/QUOTE] Well, you need to be a citizen to get the right, so it’s all good. 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/70 "2010-04-07T00:11:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Overstating a wee bit, aren’t you? [Here:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft)Nowhere did the Court say anything about part of the Constitution not meaning anything. The Constitution states a reason (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”) for the Patents and Copyrights Clause. The argument was made that the Sonny Bono Act clearly did not serve this purpose (the factual record of the court being bereft of any examples of seventy-to-ninety-year-old corpses rising from the grave to produce additional works of science or art). The Court rejected this argument, finding that Congress’ power under the Patents and Copyrights Clause was not limited by the stated justification therefor. QED. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/71 "2010-04-07T00:14:37Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ve heard this argument made before. It says that the second amendment would prohibit policies like “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” because the government cannot restrict the right of gays to join the armed forces. Similarly, past restrictions on blacks, women, and native americans serving were also unconstitutional. It’s an interesting argument but, as far as I know, it’s never been the basis of any court rulings. It would create a situation like that in Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, in which the government is positively obligated to come up with _some_ job any given recruit is capable of doing. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/72 "2010-04-07T00:27:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Let’s say there is a street in our town that has a school. We argue that because of the school we want a 20 mph speed limit on that street and enact such a law. A few years later the school closes. The original reason for the speed limit no longer exists but the speed limit is still valid unless we specifically repeal it. I like this analogy and it seems on point. I would think that even if we all agreed unanimously that a militia in this day and time is a very, very bad idea, we would still need to amend the constitution, because that document says that the militia we all hate is necessary for the security of a free state. Until we formalize it, the militia is still necessary by law because the controlling constitutional provision says it is, and because of this, we have the right to keep and bear arms. Like your school speed limit, I don’t think you could wish it away by making an assumption that it isn’t needed anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/73 "2010-04-07T00:30:10Z")
Neither the Federal government nor the states (nor their creatures the local governments and school districts) has any right to compel people to undertake any religious observances or to refrain from any such that they freely choose to undertake. (Hey, if a discussion of the Third Amendment can be hijacked into pointless argument #6,768 as to whether the Second Amendment conveys an individual or communal right, I should be able to make a _non sequitur_ about the First Amendment, right? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/74 "2010-04-07T00:35:43Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > The Constitution states a reason (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”) for the Patents and Copyrights Clause. It also states that inventors and writers have opposing rights, and what Congress can do to resolve the tension. Which Congress did. None of that is analogous to the Second, and none of that means that a stated reason means nothing. ---
**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 7, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/75 "2010-04-07T00:52:54Z")
\ ---
**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 7, 2010, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/76 "2010-04-07T01:03:09Z")
Just a few choice quotes out of many I found at [This site](http://www.catb.org/~esr/fortunes/rkba.html): > [@](#): > > “Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.” > –Aristotle > [@](#): > > Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. > – James Madison, The Federalist Papers > [@](#): > > “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” > – Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188 > [@](#): > > Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. […] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. > – Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on “militia” in the 2nd Amendment > [@](#): > > “The great object is, that every man be armed. […] Every one who is able may have a gun.” > – Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788 > [@](#): > > That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms… > – Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789 > [@](#): > > In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the “collective” right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis. > – Stephen P. Halbrook, “That Every Man Be Armed”, 1984 > [@](#): > > The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. > – Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5 ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2010, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/77 "2010-04-07T12:04:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It also states that inventors and writers have opposing rights, and what Congress can do to resolve the tension. Which Congress did. None of that is analogous to the Second, and none of that means that a stated reason means nothing. Irrelevant. The argument “the stated reason for providing this right is not applicable” was raised before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said “that doesn’t matter”. QED. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/78 "2010-04-09T23:06:18Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > 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. It is often dangerous to concede the rights of others. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867/79 "2010-04-10T23:59:55Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Irrelevant. The argument “the stated reason for providing this right is not applicable” was raised before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said “that doesn’t matter”. QED. Wrong. The Court ruled “the opposing reason is also stated, and that it is up to Congress to reach a compromise between them is also stated.” Just because you want it not to mean that doesn’t mean it doesn’t. We’re talking about textual comprehension, after all, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/must-we-quarter-soldiers/534867.md?page=3)