According to Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com
>> A more interesting question is why the Third Amendment was needed. ...
>I thought a lot of the constitution was drafted in the light of British
>tyranny. And one thing good old King George did was quarter soldiers (and
>expect householders to pay for them) on pain of imprisonment ?
Innkeepers mostly, but yes, the crown had quartered soldiers and
people really didn't like it. Except that there were all sorts of
things the British did that the Americans didn't like, which is why
the Consitution enumerated a list of things the new government could
do and no more. Quartering isn't in that list, so why a redundant
amendment about it? Belt and suspenders, I suppose.
>Similarly the second amendment is a reaction to the British trying to ban
That's what the current folklore says, but that is false. Recall that the first clause
refers to "a well regulated militia."
The actual reason was that the slave states used armed state patrols to put down slave
revolts and feared that abolitionists in the north would outlaw state militias
and so make them unable to keep their slaves under control.
Read all about it here: