It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Thatoneguy
hacking is either
trespassing, likely with the intent to steal, or
destruction of another's property
in my eyesedit on 12-9-2011 by Thatoneguy because: elaboration
All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counter-balance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is that fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
Originally posted by lunatux
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
The only three inalienable rights cited were those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and they are in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.
I stand by my analysis. The fledgling Federal government didn't want to go broke from buying muskets for the troops. They assumed all free men had weapons since the country was still pretty wild.
The way I read the constitution one does not have a "right" to keep and bear arms unless one is a member of a militia which in our day would, not be some group of middle aged white nutballs dressed in ill fitting camis with cardboard license plates, but rather the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps or Air Force. And nowadays the armed forces issue the member the weapon so that second amendment has been rendered obsolescent.
But there is nothing in the constitution that says a fella cannot own one gun or a hundred. There are court cases that make a distinction between civilian weapons and weapons of war such that owning an A-bomb is illegal. I find such cases to be correctly decided.
So enjoy your guns and hit what you aim at.
edit on 9/27/2011 by lunatux because: (no reason given)
It has been ruled...
...all able bodied males above legal age are 'militia'
That means me, and my oldest son are "militia" in the sense implied within the Constitution.
It is the duty of each American to guarantee against tyranny
Thus, all of us are militiamen in the sense of the 2nd Amendment.
Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.