But it seems odd to refuse a hypothetical discussion because you reject its premise in principle when in practice you actually accept the premise. I.e., unless you're engaged in civil disobedience you have, in practice, "accepted" the restrictions you reject in principle.
False premise. Compliance to a law does not necessarily equate to acceptance of that law.
While civil disobedience has been and can be a method/means to change the law, it is often not the most effective means to achieve a specific goal.
In giving my hard-earned cash to certain groups, to advance my civil rights, is as much civil disobedience as actively demonstrating something at some State Capitol. In keeping my 2A Cases listing up-to-date is as much an active demonstration of where I place my principles and my action, as is "marching" on D.C.
So, no. I have not accepted the premise. I actively reject it.
As you may note, I also reject the limited definitions you have proposed, on acceptance and active resistance.