Ignoring or having indifference to written laws and law enforcement?

[Randwolf]

Laws are enacted in US society by following legal procedures that have been laid out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Yes, exactly! Such as due process, unless of course you are an "enemy combatant".

Baron, before you go off, I vote Republican. However, I am a social liberal / libertarian and a fiscal conservative. In any event, I surely don't subscribe to the idea that just because the government says it's right that it is right.

You allude to worshiping certain things, when the word "worship" is meaningless in the context. I think you worship government, especially that of the US. Don't get me wrong, I am a patriot and I love our country, but I am not blind to inconsistencies and wrong doings. I imagine that this is another topic (similar to "evolution") where no evidence will suffice to convince you, but governments are not to be trusted. Including the US government. That doesn't mean we don't live in the best country in the world, just that we have to be vigilant to keep it that way.

Laws that unjustly infringe upon personal liberties should not be supported, period. The trick, of course, is defining unjust - as you pointed out, laws that make sense for society as a whole may not make sense for the individual. In your case, I think you would bitch up a storm if they tried to fully undo the 2nd amendment rights. As would I...

 

[Tiassa]

The terror of just one man

Laws are enacted in US society by following legal procedures that have been laid out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Curious that you should invoke this here, since you oppose it regularly in other issues.

But the President of the USA can't issue such an order!

While you and I might recognize this, sir, I would beg you remember that not everyone else does. Indeed, to hear some of the conservative "libertarians" hear it, that's exactly the sort of terror they think they face in Obama.

Thus, while Oiram's note pertains to a fictitious situation, it also responds to a projection present in the public discourse.

To take that point 'round the circle: If one chooses disobedience—civil or otherwise—as a response to sociopolitical conditions, what obligation does one have to ensure that their justification for disobedience is accurate?

To wit, in a recent murder in Pittsburgh, some speculated that the gunman's motivation tracked back to his fear that Obama would take away his guns. President Obama, as you rightly point out, cannot take away the man's guns. That requires Congress and the President, at the very least, and the Supreme Court; or, if we were to take the long route, it would require Congress and the legislatures of thirty-five or so states.

In that particular case, it quickly becomes apparent that there is something more going on than a simple militant libertarian pipe dream. Still, though, we see this terrible paranoia emerging that somehow one man can cause so much change so quickly. Curiously, it is a recurring theme in American history; there are valid arguments suggesting that the catalyst for Confederate secession was the very election of Abraham Lincoln. In other words, he hadn't time to actually do anything to piss them off. Rather, some would suggest—and with decent source support—that the mere fact of Lincoln's presidency pissed them off that badly.

(Talk about setting themselves up for a fall; the Emancipation Proclamation could not have withstood tests of its merits save for the fact of massive domestic insurrection.)