"Minority Rule"

[Dill]

(06-03-2021, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For you, because you, apparently, only acknowledge "civil disobedience" when you agree with it.  Otherwise it's just general law breaking.

Do they have to meet both of your personal criterium to meet the definition of "civil disobedience"?  I mean, to you, sure.  But you consistently show a massive double standard with most issues of importance.

The "personal criteria" you refer to exist as a long history of precedent, beginning with Thoreau's 1848 essay "Civil Disobedience."
But refined through engagement with MLK, who spends most of his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" explaining the steps involved in non violent direct action (non-violence being one of the criteria for defining an act as civil disobedience) and the relation of the disobedient to the law which separates his actions from "general law breaking." 
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

An updated "capsule" definition might be found here, just to establish how widely recognized the criteria of civil disobedience are, how the practice of civil disobedience is separated from "general law breaking": 
The Six Characteristic Elements Of Civil Disobedience https://youmatter.world/en/definition/civil-disobedience-definition/

If people employed the above-mentioned "elements" in protesting abortion, then I would certainly agree they were practicing civil disobedience. I can do that without agreeing with their goal. And not agreeing doesn't involve me in a "massive double standard."

So now we are back to your claim that people silently refusing to follow the law and register guns qualifies as civil disobedience. How, specifically, is rule of law honored in the violation here?