People who now want a gun but can't get them thanks to our laws

To be fair, a lot of the Quartering Act is oversold in US history books.

Regs required the British to exhaust every other quartering option, including warehouses and other shops, for sheltering their troops before they turned to the inhabitants. And they usually offered rent first, for voluntary quartering, which was usually all they needed to do; they almost never forced troops on the locals if they could possibly find another option, including putting their troops in tents for months on end (like they did here in Boston, even though Gage had the legal right to quarter them on the population). The Army was well aware that it was a bad idea to force locals to house soldiers, and wise leaders tried to avoid it.

This is similar to the impressment of US sailors "leading to" the War of 1812. Our history books are very one-sided about that issue, too.

I'm pretty sure the Founders didn't consult those US history books when they specifically proscribed the practice in the Bill of Rights. It obviously made an impression on them. Of all the things they could have spelled out and only 10 Amendments to do it, they chose "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." to be one of them.
 
The British took homes and forced them to house British Soldiers. When they wrote the Bill of Rights this was a big issue of that era.

So it actually does make sense. They take the right of free speech to tell the Brits to get the eff out of their houses. Then take out their lawfully owned firearms per the 2nd. And then enforce the 3rd with 1 and 2.
I remember my late Father telling me that he was billeted in the UK with a family prior to shipping over D+10. I don't know any details and it is sadly much too late to ask any questions. One thing I do recall was that he sent that family a complete set of sterling silverware from somewhere in Europe after his Lt. refused his request to ship it to my Mother.
 
To be fair, a lot of the Quartering Act is oversold in US history books.

Regs required the British to exhaust every other quartering option, including warehouses and other shops, for sheltering their troops before they turned to the inhabitants. And they usually offered rent first, for voluntary quartering, which was usually all they needed to do; they almost never forced troops on the locals if they could possibly find another option, including putting their troops in tents for months on end (like they did here in Boston, even though Gage had the legal right to quarter them on the population). The Army was well aware that it was a bad idea to force locals to house soldiers, and wise leaders tried to avoid it.

This is similar to the impressment of US sailors "leading to" the War of 1812. Our history books are very one-sided about that issue, too.

The fact that either of them happened at all, even once, was justification to outlaw it by constitutional amendment to protect future generations.

Their very presence on North American continantal soil was a danger to the colonists.
 
Last edited:
I remember my late Father telling me that he was billeted in the UK with a family prior to shipping over D+10. I don't know any details and it is sadly much too late to ask any questions. One thing I do recall was that he sent that family a complete set of sterling silverware from somewhere in Europe after his Lt. refused his request to ship it to my Mother.
Yes, but Britain was our allie at the time. The Brits loved U.S. military and treated them very well.

Good on him for showing his gratitude to that family, I'm sure they'll remember him fondly for generations.
 
I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of people who go from being liberal to conservative or anti2a to pro2a is similar to the percentage of people who convert from Islam to Christianity. Yeah I'm sure it happens but the numbers are small enough that you can almost say it never happens

Maybe if you're talking full bore libtard to john birch or vice versa, sure.... but that's not the majority of the voting block. The majority is a bunch of
people who are very waffley. My mother went from being an "unenrolled that voted D on the grave is for democrat" typical MA voter to voting for repbulicans after she retired. Some people see the writing on the wall. The Ds are not what they were even 10 or 20 years
ago. There is no "center" to that party anymore.

-Mike
 

How does that one go ?
If you want to know what someone really thinks of a law, make it apply to them.
 
To be fair, a lot of the Quartering Act is oversold in US history books.

Regs required the British to exhaust every other quartering option, including warehouses and other shops, for sheltering their troops before they turned to the inhabitants. And they usually offered rent first, for voluntary quartering, which was usually all they needed to do; they almost never forced troops on the locals if they could possibly find another option, including putting their troops in tents for months on end (like they did here in Boston, even though Gage had the legal right to quarter them on the population). The Army was well aware that it was a bad idea to force locals to house soldiers, and wise leaders tried to avoid it.

This is similar to the impressment of US sailors "leading to" the War of 1812. Our history books are very one-sided about that issue, too.

If I was going to make a wag there were some prolific incidents here and there that inspired that amendment in the BOR. They wouldn't have gone through the trouble if it only happened like one time. Also bear in mind in the BOR, the idea was to restrict the government from doing heinous things, not "just the british" but whoever "the government" might become.

-Mike
 
...but that's not the majority of the voting block.
This ^

I think that all the Independent Voters, who never even thought about buying a firearm and found out how hard it was, may rethink their 'lack of stance' on the issue...
 
Back
Top Bottom