I guess those guys in Philly around two and a quarter centuries ago should've all been rounded up and shot. They were, after all, rebelling against a lawful government. At least, the English Parliment would say they were the lawful government.
I guess it depends on your point of view?
Tuor
ONe does have a right to commit insurrection against a lawful government, if that government does not meet the desires of the insurrectionist, however, I recommend to that person that he try to incorporate a few million of his closest friends. The solitary insurrectionist is doomed to failure.
On the flip side, since you cowardly chose "lawful" govt, (not the topic of this thread), when one is confronted by unlawful government, one has a moral DUTY to throw off such government, and to disobey unlawful statutes.
Laws which protect society or the "collective", such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, are inconsistent with the American system. Rather, one who yells "Fire" should subsequently be punished for any damage or injury caused by him, rather than society attempting to outlaw said activity before the fact.
That approach is inconsistent with indivdual liberty.
It is clear that you value the needs of society above the needs of the individual. As such, you are both a statist and a socialist.
Your cultural Jihad leads to a society of slaves at the mercy of Federal power.