I think your question is somewhat flawed. I think it would be better praised "If bitcoin was to become illegal in your jurisdiction, would you stay in that jurisdiction?"
Agreed that the act of banning bitcoin is an indication of a much bigger problem within the government. It is an indication of a totalitarian regime. It is unlikely they would only ban bitcoin, and stay (or become) a free country at the same time. But I don't believe there are any truly free countries on earth right now, because there is not a single one without a government. So it is always a choice between 'what is available to me' and 'which of those is the best choice'. What is 'best' is very subjective.
To answer your question exactly as written, no I would not continue to use Bitcoin if doing so is illegal in my jurisdiction. I believe in the rule of law, and I believe that breaking the law simply because I believe it is a bad law is most likely not going to end well for me.
I agree again. The government, with its legal monopoly on force and legal monopoly on the initiation of violence, is too powerful to disobey. Disobeying arbitrary rules, no matter how silly those rules are, will result in imprisonment. So I will follow the rules to the best of my ability. Not out of respect for these rules but for a single very practical reason: I don't want to be locked up. But without rules, I would not turn into a Mad Max character... morality should be the gauge of whether or not to do something. And morality is not subjective (see Stefan Molyneux's free book 'Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB) A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics' at
www.freedomainradio.com/free).
It is interesting to note that countries with hash anti-drug laws have higher drug usage than countries with very lenient laws. So the act of making something illegal does not seem to prevent usage - it sometimes encourages it. The same may be true for bitcoin, as the underground use case for a black market free market currency could be extremely strong in a totalitarian situation.