That's just an argument for superiority of the state, period. People routinely violate the law, and as far as I'm concerned, the law merits all the disrespect it gets. When it comes to the 2nd amendment, judges are dishonest lying hacks, and I put Scalia right in there with the bulk of them.
But you are right, that the state will use all the force violence at its disposal, in order to obtain conformity, and to exact revenge. Get caught in violation of the GFSZA, or NFA, etc., and you are screwed.
I’m sorry, but your post illustrates a lack of understanding of law and society.
We, as a civilized society, have decided a set of rules we all agree to live by. You don’t have to like them, agree with them, or accept them as just, but you do have to follow them, or face the penalty for violating them, or leave this society. Period.
Just as you don’t want me deciding that I have rights to occupy your property whenever you are not home, I don’t want 250,000,000 individuals deciding what laws they will obey and which they will not.
The answer to a disagreement with a law is to attempt to educate 51% of the people to agree with you. It is not in disobedience.
Are all gun laws unconstitutional? Do you want a person convicted of child abuse to be able to follow your child to school with a concealed weapon? Do you want 6 loyal Islamist followers of your local radical imam to sit on the street in front of your house with a loaded ZU-23, while drunk on cheap red wine?
It’s like playing Monopoly or Scrabble. We all agree to play by the same rules, or the game (or life) is worthless.
If you don’t like a rule, work to change it. If you can’t get people to agree to vote to change it, don’t blame the law; blame yourself.
That's just an argument for superiority of the state, period.
Exactly. An act of law does not ipso facto legitimize tyranny. The authority of the state is founded on the consent of the governed.