2brknot2b...free (not verified) | Tue, 01/28/2014 - 8:54am

The Dick Act neither confirms, nor denies rights. It may reaffirm them, but the rights are God granted, i.e. the right to kaba for the right to self defense, self preservation, self perpetuation, protection of other life, and property.
Marbury v. Madison made plain that any law averse to the Constitution is "null & void." Therefore, all laws repugnant to the Constitution are without force. Only the people can perpetuate the mythos that crafted laws averse to the Constitution are valid, or enforceable.
How do we counter invalid laws? First, we take actions to let our representatives know they have violated their oath, That can mean starting impeachment proceedings, recalls, or finding others to run against them in the next election cycle. Second, we can use the courts, as members of a jury, to nullify laws. Any judge who refuses to acknowledge a nullified law is acting in disobedience to the law, and has broken his sworn oath. There is a reason that oaths are supposed to be on file for all person in office. It is to use as a defense against them in the future. In other words, if they break an oath they have filed, are they any longer eligible to hold the office? Should they not be expelled for violation, or arrested for treason?
Another means to defy the authority is to simply ignore the law. It is called, "Civil Disobedience" and was outlined in the treatise of the same name by Henry David Thoreau. A law which is ignored by the masses holds no authority. If someone is arrested under said law, it is our duty to see to it that a jury of our peers finds us not guilty due to the unconstitutionality of the law, thus nullifying said law.
The last means we have of overturning unconstitutional laws is through open revolt.

The Dick Act conferred no right, did not guarantee any right. Rights can only be guaranteed by God, or the people by the means noted above. Reliance on the Dick Act as a means to continue to keep & bear arms confers on the government the right to limit the right to kaba. They have no right to in any way infringe, "to limit" being only one of its meanings.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.