Gun ownership has to go into the calculus of making a decision like this. Government officials will have to ask themselves what they are willing to tolerate in terms of armed resistance. Even if it's just one loon with a gun killing whatever officials try to get him out of his house, the ends have to justify that occurrence.

The idea that the person your forcing to do something (anything) may be armed makes the government less likely to force people to do things.

This is an almost psychopathic anarchy.

Sometimes we all need to heed the rules of the society in which we live.

If an elected government cannot make rules because "someone might get shot" then the government needs to control the guns. Otherwise we're all at the mercy of those willing to kill so they don't have to abide by the rules.

Government officials already need to worry about the political implications of their actions, they shouldn't need to worry about being murdered by a loon with a gun who disagrees.

I don't need to look up what happened in Australia because I live there. The "covid camps" were illegal border crossing camps. So all an American has to do to fully understand this event is look into at US border detention and the way that guns have, or have not, prevented these from ever being created.

> The "covid camps" were illegal border crossing camps.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Australia was violating human rights every time they made it illegal for one of their citizens to enter the country. Don't lump these "illegal border crossing"s in with foreigners trying to illegally immigrate.

In case anyone is wondering: the UDHR is not a treaty and does not carry the force of law.

Which is a shame, really. I quite like it.