Unless you win.
In his first inaugural address he stated, "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."
Yes, they all do. It's called the people. 
The tcpalm.com does show some editorial balance.
LOL squared.
Never believe anyone's opinion on the 2nd amendment who thinks you can explain United States vs. Miller in a single simple sentence.
I'm no fan of the Confederacy, but this is just stupid. The southern states, not individuals, took up arms to fight against "federal tyranny."
the Constitution did not countenance armed rebellion against the federal government.
Of course it didn't. Confederates never claimed it did. They withdrew from the Constitution, basing their "right" to do so on the theory that the states retained their full sovereignty even after joining the US under the Constitution.
As a backup justification they had the right of all men to revolution, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
This is merely a very lame attempt to associate the recent DC ruling with the Confederacy, guilt by association and all that. Won't work.
>The Parker case breaks from this precedent
Piss on precedent, Parker broke from history and principle.
Unless you win.
In his first inaugural address he stated, "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."
Yes, they all do. It's called the people.
Good grief - he's (1) wrong about the ruling, (2) wrong about the Second Amendment, (3) wrong about the Confederacy, (4) wrong about the Civil War, and (5) wrong about the Constitution in general. I'd call it a clean sweep.
Lincoln was clintonizing before we were wetting our diapers. This is classic:
""It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination." "
The Declaration of Independence, written 4 score and 7 years before Gettysburg, says that the people can abolish their government when they deem it no longer SERVES THEM!
4 score and seven years before Gettysburg, our fathers brought forth a new Confederacy!!!
The attempted connection is nonsense. The whole idea of the population being armed is to prevent the gov't from even considering abusing the rights of the citizens. The Civil War was just that, a civil war, and supposedly over states rights, not individual rights.
And the point of this is, exactly, what? Forget about the Civil War, this person would be writing on behalf of the Crown in 1776, of course. Exactly the same things.
The South shall rise!
Pretzel logic from committed socialist.
ping
First time I've heard collection of taxes described as 'protection of sovereignty'...
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
abe needed the cash. To continue the failed system of 'internal improvements'. Give him money he thinks is his due and he promises not to destroy your homeland. Some people would call that extortion. Course the Jaffaites will continue the claim abe was sent from Heaven itself to save the glorious union to eventually propogate 'democracy' around the world and he needed to protect Southerners from themselves....
up yours you socialist myrmidon!
(directed to the author, not the poster)
This is a Republic. Get over it.
Horiwitz is also a complete ignoramus when it come to the Constitution (or perhaps he needs to brush up on his math and most defiantly his history.)
When Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many Southerners, fearing that Lincoln would abolish slavery, felt they had no obligation to accept the results of the election.
Lincoln, nor any President, had no power whatsoever to end slavery. All agreed then and now, that to end slavery required a constitutional amendment.
Amendments have been very few over the last 230 years for a simple reason. They have to be approved by 3/4 of the states only after a 2/3 majority vote in each house of congress.
Even today, if slavery still existed, with 50 states instead of the 35 that existed in 1860, an amendment to ban slavery could not pass if if it were rejected by only 13 states. In 1860, it would have only taken six states to block an amendment yet their were 15 slave states who obviously oppose such and amendment.
The issue in 1860 was expansion of slavery, not the abolition of slavery. Lincoln only promised to stop expansion of slavery --- which had been a bone of contention between the north and south for the previous 40 years. No sane person, North or South, thought he could abolish slavery with some stroke of the pen. And no one even considered gun control back then --- except in the Confederacy where blacks could not own firearms.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Dixie Ping [><]