[algol]

Fine, we live in a Counsitutional [sic] Republic. And please feel free to break every single law you feel is against the counstitution [sic]. The Counstitution [sic] doesn't say a thing about a speed limit, or DUI.'

You're right that the Constitution is mute on speed limits or DUI. This means that laws regarding same cannot be unconstitutional, as such, since the Constitution says nothing one way or the other. (Except federal laws which unconstitutionally violate states' rights.)

However, the Constitution, as amended, does say something about the right to keep and bear arms, namely that it not be infringed.

when the law and I run into a conflict, I'll work to change the law within the confines of the established court system.

Well, disobeying the law, being charged and tried, and having the judge (or jury) throw it out because the law is unconstitutional is working "within the confines of the established court system", but somehow I don't think that's what you had in mind.

[eno_]

You are selliing us short: The constitution enumerates federal powers. Anything it is mute on is NOT a priori fair game for federal law.

Unenumerated rights belong to states and individuals.

[sauropod]

What about "unreasonable searches and seizure?"

I have this sense about red light cameras and the brand spanking new (thank you very much Rulers of the People's Republic of Maryland) speeding cameras as well.

[dcwusmc]

If the Constitution is mute on a topic, it means that whatever the topic is, is OFF LIMITS TO FEDGOV. Read the 10th Amendment with comprehension. Some things, such as victim disarmament or ANY other violation of the equal rights of ALL, are equally off limits to the States, as well.