Rhetorical question - Civil Disobedience

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Strictly a rhetorical question, of course:

 

We are faced with the possibility (perhaps likelihood?) of a variety of new laws and ordinances which would require many of us to change our lifestyles, divest ourselves of certain articles of personal property, and more.

 

Should these laws and ordinances come into effect, how many of those affected would comply... and how many would practice "civil disobedience" by simply choosing to ignore the new regulations... possibly to the extend of being classified as criminals if "caught?"

 

Again, this is only a rhetorical question.

 

And a thought... hasn't "civil disobedience" been widely practiced by those who would impose such restrictions on the rest of us?

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

HC, you can believe me when I say that you are not the first to have such a question cross their mind..rhetorical or otherwise.

[Eyesa Horg]

Rhetorically--- I will be a "civil disobedient" plain & simple

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

One major difference would be that we would be unlikely to riot, break windows, set fires, physically accost others...

[Dantankerous]

Since I don't know what divest means, I ain't doin' it.

[Bad Bascomb, SASS # 47,494]

I think Jefferson said something to the effect that an unconstitutional law, if actually signed by the Executive branch, is invalid on its face and of no effect.... notwithstanding the current compromised/polluted condition of the Supreme Court/Federal judiciary.....

 

I'll abide the advice of a framer of the Constitution rather than some jerk masquerading as a 'Constitutional Scholar'.....

[El Hombre Sin Nombre]

Strictly a rhetorical question, of course:

 

We are faced with the possibility (perhaps likelihood?) of a variety of new laws and ordinances which would require many of us to change our lifestyles, divest ourselves of certain articles of personal property, and more.

 

Should these laws and ordinances come into effect, how many of those affected would comply... and how many would practice "civil disobedience" by simply choosing to ignore the new regulations... possibly to the extend of being classified as criminals if "caught?"

 

Again, this is only a rhetorical question.

 

And a thought... hasn't "civil disobedience" been widely practiced by those who would impose such restrictions on the rest of us?

Civil disobedience is what this nation was founded upon. Every movement of change this country has faced came from civil disobedience. For example, women didn't get the right to vote by voting on it. They had to perform heroic acts of disobedience, the result being far worse than a fine or jail time. It is quite common for the times to change ahead of the laws, and sometimes the laws need a push to get there. So yeah my friend. I agree with the "rhetorical" notion of civil disobedience.