One of my favorite discredited gun control arguments

Are you claiming this was a Second Amendment issue?

 

are you trying to excuse Democrat party gun grabbing because I can see no other reason for your post

 

nah he is trying to pretend that if we didn't get upset with that, we are being inconsistent when we criticize democrat schemes to confiscate guns

 

No. Are you? I see no other reason for your post

 

During an actual invasion? From people who have been called to serve but refuse or who actively support the enemy?
Absolutely. I support taking their guns when you put them in jail too.
Same principle really.

 

Feel free to justify the gun-grabbing. That is your stance and you are free to defend it, just keep your hands off my guns.

 

If you're called to serve during an invasion of the homeland and don't, or worse you actively support the invaders, you've committed a crime and can be seized under the 4th amendment.

If seized, you don't have a whole lot in the way of rights to a firearm until post seizure.

 

Was this confiscation unconstitutional?

 

Haha! A trick question

 

I know!! I know!

 

Not sure if you can call it an invasion, but like I said that is your stance and you are free to defend it, just keep your hands off my guns.

They could do the same now saying the guns are needed for the common good, and you'd have to give them up.

US did not have conscription at the time, just FYI.

 

Because our US government didn't exist until 1788.

 

The Continental Congress was the government. The members were the founding fathers.

 

Yes, the operative word is *was*. That government no longer exists. The states seceded from it and formed this current union governed by the current constitution.

 

The Declaration of Independence was the creation of a nation. 13 colonies had joined.
A now foreign power was invading.
Yes, an invasion.

There is not a dearth of small arms for the US government, there is no invasion, and there is no generalized call up of the militia.
So no, they couldn't.

 

If there is any implied right to privacy and bodily autonomy, it's there, even if we ignore the fact that the embryo is mindless tissue, which is understandable for non-medical people to not understand. Conservatives just did what conservatives do.

The purpose of a constitution is to secure people's rights against government power. I support it to the extent that it does this, but no further. My conception of rights is a bit different anyway as I believe rights are "contextual" not natural. E.g. things like equal access to healthcare only makes sense as a right when healthcare is as important for the enjoyment of other rights as it is today. This was not the case in the context of when the constitution was written, when healthcare was mostly useless. It's impressive how good it is for when it was written, but it's not a sacred document to me either. Today it's more of a rigid object in a changing world, with some good points and some bad, but all of which can't change even if it needs to.

 

I believe that the "personhood" of an unborn child should not be in the purview of medical personnel. When I saw my son on a sonagram and saw his forming body, fingers and fet, he was MY CHILD. When he kicked in the womb he was MY CHILD. And no third party, MD or not, was going to tell me differently. To see your child's heart beat on a sonagram and say he/she is not a person is a heartless, brutal thing that only a non-parent could do.

I have worked hard all my life to get a good education, a good job and provide for my family. I have no problem helping medically, emotionally or physically "challenged" people with their medical care. But for able bodied (and minded) people? No. Let them work as I did.

 

Um....they are the people who wrote the Declaration Of Independence and the same people who wrote the Constitution and they continued to serve as long as they could, Many became presidents. The Congress was renamed as Congress of the Confederation and then the United States Congress. You don't like what they did with guns? That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

Congress wasn't "renamed". The states seceded from their previous treaty and formed an entirely new one, with different rules. The current US government is completely separate and distinct fom the previous one under the Articles.

 

That's one way to defend gun-grabbing.

 

What defense of gun grabbing are you talking about?

 

Yours.

 

There was no authority under the Articles of the Confederation for the federal government to call up militia. Only the states had the power.

 

I don't recall defending gun grabbing. Can you point me to the post you're talking about?

 

You are defending the gun grabbers of the past by trying to argue that it was the 'old' government. It doesnt matter how old it is, - either you defend the idea, or you don't, and you are defending it.