Where's the love for the 3rd Amendment?

[underpants]

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.

I don't think it goes far enough. I don't think troops should be drawn split OR quartered inside a house or outside.

[ProudLib72]

1. I suggest we shuffle the amendments around, at least the Bill of Rights

Sort of a three card monty of amendments. Perform the shuffle weekly. You never know where the precious "right to bear arms" will show up, so you have to pay close attention. Maybe, just maybe that would force them to learn the other amendments.

[safeinOhio]

2. If we followe the 7th

I could sue a gun maker.

[former9thward]

4. We do follow the 7th.

It gives you a right to a jury trial in civil matters at the federal level. It has nothing to do with who you can sue.

[safeinOhio]

7. Except jury awards are turned over

By higher courts, and it has been made illegal to sue gun manufacturers.

[former9thward]

9. It no different than car companies or anything else.

You can't sue Ford if a drunken driver hits you even though Ford knows some people will drink and drive. If a gun is defective you can sue them same as a car.

[safeinOhio]

10. from snopes

The PLCAA was passed in response to an increasing number of lawsuits as a way to protect the industry. In a 2005 statement, George W. Bush explained his support for the bill:

Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products. This legislation will further our efforts to stem frivolous lawsuits, which cause a logjam in America’s courts, harm America’s small businesses, and benefit a handful of lawyers at the expense of victims and consumers
Opponents of the bill had a different take on the law. Speaking at the time of the bill’s debate, Dennis Henigan of the Brady Legal Action Project, a gun-control advocacy group, argued:

The gun lobby is trying to radically change the rules, to make irresponsible gun dealers and the makers of defective guns the only business[es] in America exempt from long standing principles of negligence, nuisance and product liability.

[former9thward]

12. And Snopes is wrong.

Gun manufacturers can be sued if a gun is defective. Of course you did not post what question was posed to Snopes.

[Hortensis]

13. And you ignore that the Repub intent is to stop suits,

to change the law so that people cannot sue in most cases. Why are you twisting things to claim Snopes is wrong?

Why would you want to? Even ardent gun ownership supporters wouldn't want their own ability to sue legislated away.

[former9thward]

16. I checked the link and Snopes was not wrong.

The poster had misrepresented Snopes. Snopes says exactly what I did.

[Hortensis]

17. No, Snopes was not wrong. You didn't post support

for your claim either time, but I think everyone who cares to knows what this is about anyway.

[safeinOhio]

14. OK here is what Snopes says

they are seldom wrong, at less than the NRA.

https://www.snopes.com/gun-manufacturers-crimes-products/

[former9thward]

15. Did you even read it?

I knew you had misrepresented what Snopes said. You can't can't sue them "for a crime committed with a gun." Exactly what I said. And the opposite of what you said. You can sue them for anything else. Exactly what I said and not what you said.

Can you sue Ford for a crime committed with a car they make? Why don't you ask Snopes that question?

[Hortensis]

20. Discussion of the 3rd amend. has been distracted

to this garbage. Why?

Although Snopes can be wrong, it's very careful and almost never is.

We usually see right-wing propagandists and no doubt Russia attacking Snopes' credibility. For good reason, of course -- truth is not their friend. And, to put it mildly, trumpsters hate Snopes because they hate the truth, even when they're not told to.

But WE like Snopes. Their researchers are soldiers for the truth, and truth is our weapon.

[TheSmarterDog]

22. Because everything is about guns.

At least for gun nuts.

[Hortensis]

24. :) A benign explanation, but no one in this little

exchange seems an aficionado of the gun forum. Lots of topic enthusiasts happily going round and round and round there, but not me and not Former9th either.

As Jake Tapper said to that flakey jerk, Sam Nunberg, this afternoon on being asked about some ridiculous right-wing lie, "It's a mystery."

[former9thward]

25. You don't even understand what Snopes is saying.

That is the funny part. Snopes is saying the opposite of what YOU are saying. Snopes is saying Exactly what I have been saying.

[Hortensis]

27. Interestingly, the BRITISH were afraid of standing armies,

didn't want them gathered together in barracks and so dispersed them in people's homes. But after their Glorious Revolution, "the government could not billet troops in private homes without the consent of the owners. So the English fear of standing armies was inextricably connected to their fear of having soldiers quartered in their homes without their consent." And we inherited that and codified it in our third amendment.

The Glorious Revolution took the form it did because of the Enlightenment, with of course its ideals of liberty, constitutional government, and the rights of the people which our nation was later founded on -- and which are protected and continued today by the Democratic Party. (Sadly, the Republican Party has currently been redirected.)

Pretty good article on the third itself: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-iii

[former9thward]

28. See, we agree on something!

Unfortunately neither party today supports that one idea of the Enlightenment. They both support a huge standing military.

[Hortensis]

29. Surely a false equalization between them and us?

There's enough truth in the general idea -- we DO both support the need for standing armies in this planetary era of 70 years of mostly peace after two planet-wide wars, a burden our generations inherited -- as long as it isn't examined further for the huge differences.

But I can practically hear this message coming out of the mouths of Joe Scarborough and Chuck Todd as they pursue their turnout suppression tactic of deceiving Democratic voters into "a pox on both your houses" demoralization.

[hack89]

18. The PLCAA specifically names the instances when a gun manufacturer can be sued. nt

[petronius]

3. It doesn't mention apartments, condos, duplexes, hotels, lofts, garage

conversions, town homes, prefabs... You know, I think we could be saving a ton of money on military housing; lets get to quartering!

[underpants]

5. We already pay for those.

and a 13th aircraft carrier

[treestar]

11. Yes, exactly how they think in terms of the second

Let's let them house our troops!

[tblue37]

6. We aren't supposed to maintain a standing army. nt

[TheSmarterDog]

8. So, both the 2nd and the 3rd amendments are obsolete.

[Hortensis]

19. Oh, I don't know. The way technology's going

maybe a standing army will one day be some little devices posted in strategic places, and SCOTUS will have to determine if we have to agree to have them on our property.

Itm, it still establishes our rights to be free of government intrusion in our homes and it very importantly helps define the relationship between people and military when we're at war or peace. We have sovereignty. I'd say we need to keep it in a pocket where we can reach it.

Constitutioncenter.org: "Some legal scholars have even begun to argue that the amendment might be applied to the government’s response to terror attacks and natural disasters, and to issues involving eminent domain and the militarization of the police."

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-iii

Good post by Underpants. I actually read about the third amendment.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. AIN'T NO REDCOATS GONNA BE LOUNGING IN MY LIVING ROOM, DAMMIT!

OVER MY DEAD BODY!

[TheSmarterDog]

23. You can pry my house key from my COLD DEAD HANDS!

[Turbineguy]

26. During the Nazi occupation in the Netherlands

my Grandparents were forced to host soldiers on several occasions.

They were extremely considerate and well-behaved, my Grandmother said later.