Navy Veteran Goes Ballistic on Unconstitutional Gun Laws: "I will not comply!"

[Amanda]

Navy Veteran Goes Ballistic on Unconstitutional Gun Laws: "I will not comply!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMQoJAuKrik#t=131


Laws repugnant to the Constitution are automatically null and void. -- United States Supreme Court, Marbury vs Madison


More here:

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/connecticut-veteran-i-will-not-comply-what-are-you-going-to-do-about-those-of-us-who-will-not-comply_032014

[Jewboo]

A snooze until either:



1) Stormtroopers actually invade a home and confiscate an "illegal" gun.

2) A cop gets shot preemptively by some disgruntled gun owner.


Only then this gets real.


http://www.worldwidereaction.com/smileys/images/smileys/emotions/23_11_55.gif

[iOWNme]

Laws repugnant to the Constitution are automatically null and void. -- United States Supreme Court, Marbury vs Madison


'Laws' which are repugnant to HUMAN MORALITY are automatically null and void. -- Reason, Logic and Evidence.

[palani]

I always comply. Venturing into argument is jumping into a large pool of dishonor. The dishonor is what is punished so best just not go there.

The 2nd amendment gives people the right to a flag, a coat of arms and a seal. Here .. you can read all about these rights here
http://books.google.com/books?id=CcQrAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=arms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IW4pUZGrOsqW2QWCroHICQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=arms&f=false

They can abolish the 2nd amendment entirely without affecting your right to self defense. I don't know how you would justify your use of a flag, coat of arms or a seal then though. Maybe THIS is what is under attack rather than firearms?

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?67617-The-Right-to-Bear-Arms&highlight=bear+arms

By the way ... I believe I would recommend downloading and saving that book. It no longer shows up on a google book search and the only way I got the URL was going to my previous post on the topic. Things tend to vanish that present alternative views.

[Horn]

I always comply.

Doesn't this case fall under the part about "committing" a crime?

Failure to comply requires no commitment.

[palani]

Doesn't this case fall under the part about "committing" a crime? Doesn't that depend upon whom the law was written for?


Failure to comply requires no commitment. When considered from the viewpoint of 'need to comply'?
From
http://books.google.com/books?id=exNPAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+right+to+bear+arms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T90VU5LQIJP_yQHL1oCgCw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=the%20right%20to%20bear%20arms&f=false
http://i58.tinypic.com/f1xy0j.jpg

When reading this book be aware of the difference between a sovereign, a citizen and a subject. If you are in 'subject' mode then your duty is to comply. If you are in 'citizen' mode then there can be no law made without your full agreement with that law.

[palani]

http://i59.tinypic.com/103yidh.jpg

So ... disobedience to a law which we did not prescribe must be SLAVERY?

[Horn]

Undependence not! When concerning manslaughter vs. premeditated murder.

Just because someone has died doesn't automatically carry a sentence either way. Prosecutors should not be left unaided to determine a charge, jurors need to be included to assess whether or not the assailant is unwitty.