Obama: Government Tyranny is Impossible in the United States

[bucs90]

"2ndAmendent", you must study the history of police first, to see the viewpoint the Founders had on them and on troops being housed amongst the people. The police as we know it formed in England, and the reason they are blue is the British did not want to confuse the military with police, so they wore blue instead of the British military's red, and the two were to be housed and kept 100% apart form each other.

In context of this, the Founders did not want military troops housed "amongst the citizens", as they saw the dangers it could cause in England. Troops were to be housed in military barracks. Police were not, and thus, only police- not military- were "amongst" the citizens.

But today, YOU and your tax money pays to house soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines "amongst" the people, in private housing, amongst the citizens.

I expect you to start a rally against that.

National defense and military is a charge of the federal government.. and paying for those services is indeed justified.. and hence, paying for the employment compensation of the employees handling those jobs is justified.. and as prior service, that 'free' food and housing is taken into account when you are paid under minimum wage for all the hours you serve on duty

Quite different than the conservative opposition to people and corporations getting handouts for nothing against the intent of the constitution

So any spending expense is OK, so long as it is for the military? That seems to be a consistent theme of the right. They hate government spending, and are starting to outright hate the government itself- but, the exempt the military 100% from their anger over spending and size of government.

But, do you take the same supportive stance for people who work for states and cities in charge of protecting citizens? Do you find all spending on that "justified", since protecting their citizens is a charge of the state and city government? So, to be consistent, you should either be for martial law, OR be just as supportive of spending on state and city protection for citizens.

 

[bucs90]

Let us suppose that I agreed with you, and made a thread, would you concur with it? Or are you making a strawman argument that even you don't agree with?

Try it and see. Read my last thread. The history of police started in England. They were absolutely convinced that police and military should be kept separate. Thats why military wore red, police wore blue. The British people hated the idea of military doing domestic policing.

Thats the context our Founders used, as a backlash against things from England they didnt want. One of the points of the 3rd was to keep the military housed in barracks, NOT "amongst the people".

But you are being forced to pay to do just that.

It is a clear violation, isnt it? Start a thread. See how it plays out.

Since this is new information to me, I currently agree with you, but I believe if I were to take a strong stance against this housing of troops, you would drop an A-bomb on me, since I don't have that much knowledge of the situation. I'm admitting that I don't know enough about this (very new to me) to discuss it, so far I've agreed with what you said. Is there any reason not to agree with you? Are you hiding something?

The Third Amendment and the Issue of Standing Armies:

Nope. Not hiding anything.

You and I and all other taxpayers literally pay the off base rent for US military members. Its usually around 900 a month per member. I know 4 local USAF guys who share a 2 bedroom apt, and bank a lot of cash from it.

The 3rd amendment was written with the spirit of the old British idea that troops should not be housed "amongst the citizens", but only in military barracks on base to prevent oppression.

Today, we the taxpayer are literally paying to house the troops amongst us.

As a Constitutional purist, I'd think you would be opposed to this. I'll wait on a thread from you explaining your protest of this. I believe it is called the Housing Allowance by the military. But it is just your tax money, paying their rent, to live amongst the people.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Try it and see. Read my last thread. The history of police started in England. They were absolutely convinced that police and military should be kept separate. Thats why military wore red, police wore blue. The British people hated the idea of military doing domestic policing.

Thats the context our Founders used, as a backlash against things from England they didnt want. One of the points of the 3rd was to keep the military housed in barracks, NOT "amongst the people".

But you are being forced to pay to do just that.

It is a clear violation, isnt it? Start a thread. See how it plays out.

Since this is new information to me, I currently agree with you, but I believe if I were to take a strong stance against this housing of troops, you would drop an A-bomb on me, since I don't have that much knowledge of the situation. I'm admitting that I don't know enough about this (very new to me) to discuss it, so far I've agreed with what you said. Is there any reason not to agree with you? Are you hiding something?

The Third Amendment and the Issue of Standing Armies:

Nope. Not hiding anything.

You and I and all other taxpayers literally pay the off base rent for US military members. Its usually around 900 a month per member. I know 4 local USAF guys who share a 2 bedroom apt, and bank a lot of cash from it.

The 3rd amendment was written with the spirit of the old British idea that troops should not be housed "amongst the citizens", but only in military barracks on base to prevent oppression.

Today, we the taxpayer are literally paying to house the troops amongst us.

As a Constitutional purist, I'd think you would be opposed to this. I'll wait on a thread from you explaining your protest of this. I believe it is called the Housing Allowance by the military. But it is just your tax money, paying their rent, to live amongst the people.

The only thing I need is some information on where the most massive concentrations of troops are, my google search "Military off base housing" doesn't yield many specifics, and I don't know what else to search.

 

[bucs90]

Since this is new information to me, I currently agree with you, but I believe if I were to take a strong stance against this housing of troops, you would drop an A-bomb on me, since I don't have that much knowledge of the situation. I'm admitting that I don't know enough about this (very new to me) to discuss it, so far I've agreed with what you said. Is there any reason not to agree with you? Are you hiding something?

The Third Amendment and the Issue of Standing Armies:

Nope. Not hiding anything.

You and I and all other taxpayers literally pay the off base rent for US military members. Its usually around 900 a month per member. I know 4 local USAF guys who share a 2 bedroom apt, and bank a lot of cash from it.

The 3rd amendment was written with the spirit of the old British idea that troops should not be housed "amongst the citizens", but only in military barracks on base to prevent oppression.

Today, we the taxpayer are literally paying to house the troops amongst us.

As a Constitutional purist, I'd think you would be opposed to this. I'll wait on a thread from you explaining your protest of this. I believe it is called the Housing Allowance by the military. But it is just your tax money, paying their rent, to live amongst the people.

The only thing I need is some information on where the most massive concentrations of troops are, my google search "Military off base housing" doesn't yield many specifics, and I don't know what else to search.

Anywhere that there is a big military base. I'd guess if you check San Diego, Norfolk, Charleston, Tampa, the DC/Qunatico area, Texas, etc, etc, you'll find communities with very large populations of military personnel living "amongst the people", and many are living in rental properties, and their rent is paid through the taxpayer funded off base housing allowance.

So basically, yes, you are paying to house troops "amongst the people", which flies in the face of what the Founders intended.

I personally am ok with that. I support the military. But if you are a purist of the Constitution, then you would be against this, as well as being against the existence of the FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, Border Patrol, Coast Guard (maybe), and ICE. As they are all NOT a "standing army", yet, are funded by the Federal government and do law enforcement and sometimes military activities in and out of country.

Being a strict Constitutionalist is tricky. You must be consistent.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I don't even...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Who is Obama trying to kid?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Anywhere that there is a big military base. I'd guess if you check San Diego, Norfolk, Charleston, Tampa, the DC/Qunatico area, Texas, etc, etc, you'll find communities with very large populations of military personnel living "amongst the people", and many are living in rental properties, and their rent is paid through the taxpayer funded off base housing allowance.

So basically, yes, you are paying to house troops "amongst the people", which flies in the face of what the Founders intended.

I personally am ok with that. I support the military. But if you are a purist of the Constitution, then you would be against this, as well as being against the existence of the FBI, CIA, DEA, ATF, Border Patrol, Coast Guard (maybe), and ICE. As they are all NOT a "standing army", yet, are funded by the Federal government and do law enforcement and sometimes military activities in and out of country.

Being a strict Constitutionalist is tricky. You must be consistent.

I think you'd find it difficult to find any location on the coast that isn't populated, since the coasts contain the majority of the population of the United States, you could also argue that SOME of these military bases existed BEFORE all these people moved there in large quantities, and thus have "consented" to their presence.

However, establishing a nearby military base then housing them among the population would be unconstitutional, unless the local population Consents via their local legislature. Without this Consent they could ask them to leave at any time, and failure to follow the will of the local people would result in a Third Amendment crisis.

On the issue of the FBI/CIA/TSA/NSA/[insert alphabet soup here] I would call immediately for a Constitutional Amendment that allows ONE INTELLIGENCE agency, that is divided into several departments, and must follow all due process and be subject to Congressional oversight. Intelligence agencies are one of those entities that are not sufficiently prohibited nor controlled by the Constitution.

Obviously abandoning these agencies at the moment, no matter how bloated they are, would result in swift national disaster. However, they need to be reigned in and consolidated.

 

[9thIDdoc]

If you dont like the idea of Americans being forced to house soldiers, then I assume you are going to rally against the FACT that US taxpayers pay the off-base housing costs for troops. Thats right. Your tax money pays the rent of US troops to live at off base apartments. While we could build (cheaply) massive, cement barracks instead, we choose to make the taxpayer pay for off base apartments at private apartment complexes instead, usually at about a $900 a month per troop cost.

So your local Navy cook, who probably wont see a single day of combat in 20 years, is getting free housing on your dime. Hows that for the Constitution?

So you would put a soldier's wife and children in a barracks?

 

[Agit8r]

See signature.

 

[bripat9643]

If you dont like the idea of Americans being forced to house soldiers, then I assume you are going to rally against the FACT that US taxpayers pay the off-base housing costs for troops. Thats right. Your tax money pays the rent of US troops to live at off base apartments. While we could build (cheaply) massive, cement barracks instead, we choose to make the taxpayer pay for off base apartments at private apartment complexes instead, usually at about a $900 a month per troop cost.

So your local Navy cook, who probably wont see a single day of combat in 20 years, is getting free housing on your dime. Hows that for the Constitution?

That has nothing to do with the Third Amendment, which is designed to protect us from a Police State by Standing Armies.

Can you somehow project your example into police oppression? Then you'll have merit to continue talking in this thread.

Sure it does. What difference does it make whether they force you to allow soldiers in your home for shelter, OR, if they come and say you must pay for them to live in the apartment across the street?? Taxes are oppression, right?

There's a big difference, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to an obvious moron. The only thing that matters is that one was declared unconstitutional and the other wasn't

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

2) Does it occur to him that the Second and Third Amendment are bound to each other, the same way the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are bound to each other?

You just made that up.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

2) Does it occur to him that the Second and Third Amendment are bound to each other, the same way the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are bound to each other?

You just made that up.

Wait, are you saying the the Second and Third Amendments are not historically and ideologically linked?

Are you saying that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are not historically and ideologically linked?

Are you saying the Amendments 4 through 8 are not historically and ideologically linked?

Do you think the Third Amendment is meant to protect you against Foreign governments?

(Prepare to be shit on)