snorri wrote:texasjeep44 wrote:Like it or not that is the way it is. If you want to change the law, work towards that goal, but just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it shouldn't be followed or that it should be overlooked because you don't agree with it or it didn't hurt anyone.
That type of thinking is for criminals
Like Oskar Schindler. And the Underground Railroad in the USA.
Good point. (I started writing this before there were any responses but I have taken far too long so the below has some duplication.)
I believe that we have an obligation to follow legitimate authority's legitimate requests. Anything that is unethical or immoral is not a legitimate request in my book. It is not unethical or immoral to carry a weapon concealed as opposed to openly in the course of daily life. If you don't like the law, by all means, work to change it. In the mean time, a legitimate authority has made a legitimate request (that you follow this law, even if you think it is a poor law) and I believe there is an obligation to follow it as long as it stands and as long as it remains a morally neutral issue.
Some people would believe so strongly that the federal government could not legitimately make such a request and their consciences would be so strongly set on that that for those few, it would be a moral evil to oppose their consciences. Even still, it would be prudent in such a circumstance to comply with a morally neutral request from an illegitimate authority than to take on the inordinate risks associated with not doing so. But some people feel so strongly convinced that something is wrong that they feel a need to bring attention to the issue, even at the risk to their own life or freedom. They wouldn't sloppily let it slip at a petting zoo. They'd be marching around openly passing out fliers in front of the legislative offices or some equivalent. The guy the OP saw was just apathy for the laws, which is a bit of a let-down. Doing the best at what you believe in is admirable and being sloppy clearly isn't the best.
Situations such as murder, genocide, human trafficking, eugenics, and the like are morally evil so no one can make a legitimate request that you participate in them. As such, comparing a morally neutral request (concealed carry) to a morally evil request is not a fair comparison. To clarify, I think it was a fair point to make to the above poster who made no allowance for disobeying laws which require participation with evil. The obvious conclusion that slavery was acceptable to not participate in and so concealed carry doesn't require citizens' respect, either, is one I would reject.
