One of my favorite discredited gun control arguments

So does good policy trump what is constitutional? I kind of felt that way about Roe v. Wade. It was probably unconstitutional for the federal government to force the states to allow abortions. However, the people getting abortions are disproportionately irresponsible people who would be sh*tty parents anyway and not raise their children to be law abiding citizens. Some economists have found a link between more abortions and less crime.

 

Policy which iolates the constitution is never good.

 

If it’s not Constitutional it’s not good policy.

Can you link that opinion to something of substance?

 

Aside from Biden paying off college loans for elites, a power he clearly does not have... what policies are you referring to that violate the Constitution?

 

The constitution itself contains provisions for the processes not only for amendment, but a complete rewrite if the will for it exists. with all the critism of the 2a no amendment call has ever been seriously considered.

 

It's a written law. We can't just disregard it, can we?

 

But we both know that the US government was never given any power to ban or restrict firearms possesion, right?

 

there were no federal laws about guns back then in terms of prohibitions or restrictions. those were state or municipal codes-many of which were based on anti black or anti "papist" bigotry

 

most in this day and age don’t realize private individuals owned the same weaponry as could be used to arm a military, including the equivalent of fully armed battleships of the day. political representatives carried arms into legislative chambers even into the White house. seeing someone waking about armed wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow anywhere.

 

Whatever you say, but they did disarm people who were not willing to join the militia.

 

never happened. joining a militia was never compulsory anywhere I know of.

 

Yes it did happen, and I have provided the text on multiple occasions, probably on this thread as well. You didn't have to join the militia, but if you refused, they'd grab your gun and give it to someone willing to fight.

[Thursday March 14. 1776.]
Resolved That it be recommended to the several Assemblies, Conventions and Committees or Councils of Safety, of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all Persons to be disarmed, within their respective Colonies, who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies, against the hostile Attempts of the British Fleets and Armies, and to apply the Arms taken from such Persons in each respective Colony, in the first place, to the Arming the continental Troops raised in said Colony, in the next, to the arming such Troops as are raised by the Colony for its own defence, and the Residue to be applied to the arming the Associators; that the Arms when taken be appraised by indifferent Persons, and such as are applied to the Arming the Continental Troops, be paid for by the Congress and the Residue by the respective Assemblies, Conventions, or Councils or Committees of Safety.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/01-03-02-0016-0075

 

You mean during the revolutionary war they disarmed traitors?

 

No, I meant what I said.

 

They disarmed traiters during the revolutionary war.

 

Is you say so, but they also disarmed anyone who was not willing to join the militia.

I guess the disarmament campaign was more widespread than I realized.

 

During the revolutionary war, yep. It was a divisive war. Traitors abounded.

But regardless, that governmnent no longer exists, so what it did isn't all that relevant to our current US government.

 

it was more about conscripting arms to help the revolution than disarming pacifists. the goal was arming rebels

 

I was responding to the poster who claimed it never happened. It did happen, and sounds like people are ok with disarmament as long as the excuse for it is satisfactory.

 

People WERE okay with it. During a war. Under a different government.

 

in a war, I can see taking firearms that are not being used to aid the cause. there was no second amendment then, there was no current government so an attempt to extrapolate what happened then to justify what the scummy democrat party is trying to do now is specious

 

BINGO!! No 2d Amendment then

 

Yes, an act disarming those who refused to take up arms during an invasion.
The militia is the entire body of the people. Those refusing to serve when called commit an infraction.
How is this difficult to understand? Why do you think this is some sort of "gotcha"?

 

Its not a "gotcha". The claim was that is never happened, and I showed that it did happen, and its also why 'militia' is mentioned in 2A.

And here you are defending gun grabbing as long as you agree with the excuse.