George Washington, It Seems, Hated Our Freedoms.

So some legislator wanted to teach the liberal fascist Obama and his unconstitutional health insurance reform requiring citizens to buy stuff a lesson by requiring all his fellow citizens to buy a gun for their own good. His assumption was that the measure wouldn't pass or would be found unconstitutional. Highlarrity ensues:

Does he think a gun mandate and the health care mandate are the same thing, I asked? "Yes," he responded.
I then asked him whether he had an opinion on the gun mandate that was signed into law by Washington in 1792. "I wasn't aware of it," he said after a short pause. "Is it still on the books or has it been removed?"
I explained that the Militia Acts were amended many times over the course of this country's history, and this provision was phased out a long time ago.
In the course of the interview, I asked whether this would change his opinion on individual mandates. "No," he said. "I really don't feel like a gun mandate would be constitutional under these circumstances."
What does he mean by the circumstances?
"Well, it was shortly after the Revolutionary War, and it was before the War of 1812," he said, "which may have been something that was on the radar screen -- that they knew there could be another challenge coming from overseas. I'm not a history major, though."

What I find especially humorous about this is that he assumes that Constitutional principles are relative.  Sure it's okay, he appears to argue, to force citizens to buy a gun if war is in the offing but not in time of peace; similarly, one assumes, the various other rights and restrictions disappear or appear only under the right set of circumstances.

ETA: When it comes to morality and Einstein, the Tea Party Patriots insist, relativity is evil or crazy elitist hatred of common sense; however, when it comes to the constitution relativity is just good old fashion patriotism.