Do you advocate someone not obeying laws they disagree with?

Everyone disobeys God's law every day! We have the freedom to choose - of course no one can keep up with the laws, because there are an unbelievable amount of statues generated every day, and ignorance is no excuse for breaking them - according to the law :confused:

Just be prepared to suffer the concequences when you break them - unless they don't inforce them - like entering the country illegally, setting up shop, and competing with citizens :confused:

My law is to never victimize anyone - I don't concern myself too much with the manutia, because the majority of it ( Obamascare ) is insrutable :confused:
 
For example, if some disagree with taxation, do you think they are correct if they don't pay them. Whatever law it may be, if you disagree with it, should you violate it or respect it because it is the law?

Take the white folks who provided education to some slaves, against the law, should they not have done that because the law is the law, or is it the duty of someone to not follow laws they find immoral ?

The left always has.
 
For example, if some disagree with taxation, do you think they are correct if they don't pay them. Whatever law it may be, if you disagree with it, should you violate it or respect it because it is the law?

Take the white folks who provided education to some slaves, against the law, should they not have done that because the law is the law, or is it the duty of someone to not follow laws they find immoral ?

I believe in buying legal firearms. If they are illegal, I won't buy then. Simple huh.
 
Does this apply to marijuana? How about sodomy?

The more laws there are, the more people will start disobeying the law.

Its not just quantity of laws, its quality.

There is a dividing line between laws people break that they see as stupid, and those they know are legitamate and break them anyway.

Unless the person is a sociopath, an armed robbery knows what he is doing is wrong, and knows he is injuring another party, he just doesnt care. The law broken is designed to protect other people specificly, namely the robbery victim

A person buying a dime bag on the other hand, is breaking a law designed to protect "society" and the person buying the dimebag themself, as the government has decided that people cannot handle pot responsibly. There is no concrete victim of the crime. This type of law is more abstract than ones we can all agree on (theft, murder, etc).

To go with the OP's line of reasoning, you dont see people protesting for the right to randomly murder and rape people. Laws people protest are often the laws that seek to protect society and the individual from themselves.

Actually, there are some nutjobs who protest incest/child sex crimes. They are very disturbing.

but they are such a small minority, I would lump them with the sociopaths, that see no issue with causing harm to another person.
 
I don't own any illegal firearms.
I will not just turn them in to make some people feel safer.
I will not turn them in without resisting that unlawful confiscation.
(hypothetically speaking - there are no such laws in place now)

And here you see where an individual has drawn the line. And there are a LOT of people out there who draw the line at the same point.
 
Should you obey the law?? Yes... And you should fight to change the law if you are that against it
If it is completely against every fiber of you r being, you are free to break the law if you believe it to be unjust... but be prepared to pay the piper if caught... you don't get the defense of 'it just is not right'

The entire point of civil disobedience is to get arrested, so that you can use that and the subsequent trial to bring public attention to the fact that the law is wrong, and thus get it changed.
 
thats a big question. I don't believe in breaking the law, but I do think there are laws questionable., and those who make the laws are questionable. I think most people should know right from wrong and follow what is right.
 
It depends on the law.

The laws against marijuana, for one example, are an abomination. There is no good reason for them. I have absolutely no problem with adults ignoring the marijuana laws.

(Just don't get caught.)

Absolutely, and the example the adults are setting for the teens is no problem either. After all, no unethical adult would sell MJ to a minor.

Did I get that right?
 
And if the second is ever repealed?

It can't be "repealed" per se, it is a constitutional amendment. The only way to revoke it is with another amendment - which will never happen.

Instead, what we will have, what we do have, is the left attempting to break the back of the amendment by creating peripheral law.

At the moment, we have 5 justices on the SCOTUS who hold allegiance to the United States Constitution. Should we lose one of those 5, Obama will move quickly to place another Kagan like radical on the court - who well may declare the entire constitution unconstitutional.

Should the unelected body openly defy the Constitution to promote the agenda of the authoritarian left, I will not comply. Should a Kagan led court declare that the second does not protect individual arms, I will not comply. Should they declare that semi-auto rifles of all sort are not protected, I will not comply.
 
I believe in buying legal firearms. If they are illegal, I won't buy then. Simple huh.

If John Roberts dropped dead tomorrow, and Barack Obama put another Elena Kagan type on the court; then the court declared that the second does not protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms - would you surrender all of the firearms you have to the local KGB, er ATF office?
 
And if the second is ever repealed?

It can't be "repealed" per se, it is a constitutional amendment. The only way to revoke it is with another amendment - which will never happen.

Instead, what we will have, what we do have, is the left attempting to break the back of the amendment by creating peripheral law.

At the moment, we have 5 justices on the SCOTUS who hold allegiance to the United States Constitution. Should we lose one of those 5, Obama will move quickly to place another Kagan like radical on the court - who well may declare the entire constitution unconstitutional.

Should the unelected body openly defy the Constitution to promote the agenda of the authoritarian left, I will not comply. Should a Kagan led court declare that the second does not protect individual arms, I will not comply. Should they declare that semi-auto rifles of all sort are not protected, I will not comply.

Nice job establishing the line. Gun grabbers should remember that he is not an isolated example of this mentaility.
 
The entire point of civil disobedience is to get arrested, so that you can use that and the subsequent trial to bring public attention to the fact that the law is wrong, and thus get it changed.

Civil disobedience is historically a failure.

If the left moves to disarm and establish an authoritarian state, I have no intention of being civil about it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top