People who don't want you to have tools of any given kind have a reason for that. Their reason might be mistrust, ill intent, paternalism, or something along those lines. But whatever their reason is, they are arrogating a right to interference which is not theirs. Even if such an interfering busybody is solicitous, considering them well-meaning seems rather incoherent. If they meant well, they would mind their own business.
This seems a remarkably strong statement. Do you really want to suggest that any man (or woman, since the Ten Commandments are not gender specific) who does not own a firearm is in sin? I can understand thinking it wise and responsible behavior under certain circumstances for people to own guns - an appropriate application of the sixth commandment in their situation - but you seem to be suggesting rather more than that,
The word “require” doesn’t always mean one is in sin if they fail at anytime to meet the requirement. In civil applications of the law, sometimes conditions are present. For example, consider Deuteronomy 22:8: “When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.” This is an application of the sixth commandment that very clearly requires protections around hazardous places on one’s property. Yet, in this case law, not having a parapet around one’s roof is not necessarily sinful, unless and until the conditional (in bold) is met. So is someone today in sin if there is no fence around their pool? No, but if a child falls in and drowns because there were no protections in place, they are guilty of their blood. In the same way, not owning a firearm is not in itself sinful, but if someone’s family is murdered because they failed to take lawful and reasonable measures to defend the life of their neighbor (WSC 68), I think they could be guilty of violating the sixth commandment. Of course, that might be difficult to demonstrate in court, but the principle still holds, it seems to me.
I got to thinking about it later, and realized I had, in fact, roughly doubled the percentage. I'm not sure I'd go as far as 3%, but 6% is generous, and more accurate than my number.
Help me put Two and two together : if you have guns and you are put under a governmental house arrest.. what then?
Notice how we (the USA) have never been put under a house arrest. At least this is never something that has happened in my lifetime. Even during "lockdowns", I was never confined to my house.
Do you consider being placed in mandatory quarantine due to a medical infection "house arrest"? If so, many in the US were "put under a house arrest."
I may be wrong here, but I don't know of any places where you were forced to quarantine. I know it was recommended, but I don't know anyone who was forced.
I miss Wisconsin: https://regs.health.ny.gov/volume-title-10/content/section-213-isolation-and-quarantine-procedures (note 12.f towards the bottom)
Here is my isolation order:
And, no, I did not like this order, nor did I completely agree with it, but I could not find a moral reason to disobey it. I own multiple firearms, as do the majority of people in my rural area who were similarly ordered to isolate and were confined to their homes. This would be widely known by the authorities issuing the orders, and yet it did not stop them (nor do I believe they were worried about people taking up arms over the issue).
New York never fails to amaze me on how far gone it is. Sorry to see you had to experience that. I have not seen one of those on Wisconsin. New York and California are basically communist at this point, so I guess they would be the exclusion to my comment. Ultimately, compared to the rest of the world, the tyranny here appeared to be a lot less overall. I do think this is in part because of guns.
How about the fact that the civil magistrate has no authority or warrant to make anyone a prisoner in their own home?
When there was a 10pm curfew, I waited until after 10 to walk to the mailbox, because it seemed important to demonstrate, at least if any neighbors were watching, that the way to deal with illegitimate orders is to disregard them. Many of those orders were experiments in tyranny, and the best thing to do with an experiment in tyranny is to make sure it fails. I think it's definitely unloving to one's neighbor to normalize tyranny.
