One of the occasional "arguments" (and I do use that term lightly) you will see come out of the more-deranged anti-rights cultists is that parts of the Constitution, and, specifically, the Bill of Rights, are so outdated that we can simply ignore them or abrogate them at will, and it is No Big Deal (TM)*. The Third Amendment is typically held up as an example of how "outdated" the Constitution is, and by way of a compositional logical fallacy, the Second Amendment is thrown under the bus as being "antiquated". Of course, the First, Fourth, Fifth, and other Amendments are left intact, because they have "modern relevance", and "people use them every day", unlike those outdated Second and Third Amendments which we apparently have no need of any more.
Some London residents are getting troops and surface-to-air missiles on their rooftops for the Summer Olympics.
British security officials identified potential sites for the missiles on Monday and announced plans for security tests during the week.
The potential sites include Lexington Building in Tower Hamlets, the Fred Wigg Tower in Waltham Forest, Blackheath Common, Oxleas Wood, the William Girling Reservoir and Barn Hill in Epping Forest.
Around 700 people living at Whelan’s building in Bow — about 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) from London’s Olympic Stadium — have been contacted and warned that the weapons and about 10 troops are likely to be based at the site for around two months. London is hosting the Summer Olympics from July 27-Aug.12.
In the leaflet, the defense ministry said the venue offered an uncluttered "view of the surrounding areas and the entire sky above the Olympic Park."
In fairness, I have no idea who owns those housing structures, or if they are part of the "public housing" infestation slowly spreading across once-Great Britain, but, really, even if they were, when does putting SAM installations on top of them make sense? And if the buildings are privately owned, the owners have every right to tell the British government and military to pack sand; however, they may not have the legal ability to do so, and that is exactly where the Third Amendment comes in – it protects that right from governments who would just as soon put missile batteries on your roof.
No, quartering troops in your home is not exactly something that comes up all that often, but "uncommon" is not equivalent to "anachronistic", as The Police State Once Known as Great Britain seems eager to demonstrate**. So if the "gun control" extremists are this far off on their personal opinions regarding one particular Amendment in the Bill of Rights, according to their logic, why should I listen to anything they have to say about the others?
(* – One of the more-amusing observations about this particular "argument" is that the word "repeal" almost never shows up in conjunction with it. The "gun control" extremists want our government unencumbered from the apparent shackles of the Second Amendment, but they do not want to abide by the Constitution’s built-in modification clause and repeal the Second Amendment by passing another (just like what happened with Prohibition). Apparently "playing by the rules" is not a strong suit for these folks.
** – Of course, this incident is made all the more ironic by the fact that the Third Amendment is a direct outgrowth of the British Army’s behavior in the pre-Revolutionary Colonies. You would think they would have learned.)