Now today, we do not enforce the law with Swords. But back then, they did. The sword was feared by the general population at that time and one of the ultimate weapons against crime and violence. Today, the Police use Mace, Nightsticks but use Guns as the ultimate weapon against crime. See Romans 13:4 for the ultimate theological discussion on the governments use of power.
Now the question is whether the Lord Jesus Christ prohibits personal weapons of defense. When, he was on the earth last, he used the parable of the Robbed Man. A man he said was beaten by ROBBERS and left for dead. He said the man was going from JERUSALEM to JERICHO which was a hot bed of Robbers. He used this lesson with the Pharisees to answer them about Who was their Neighbor according to the law. To which they would argue was Not their neighbor (wrongly).
Now to say you couldn't carry a weapon from JESUSALEM to JERICHO and protect your family and children would have gotten you laughed out of town in that day. To not provide (protection) for your family in Scriptures is to make yourself "Worse than an Infidel".
Thus, I will give the Cloak from my back, and walk "the extra mile" but when my family is threatened directly with violence I feel I have the right and the responsibility to defend them with all I have. And those on the border will Mexico will tell you Exactly what that means.
Somewhat of a side issue jumped out at me.
I have never seen any discussion of whether the apostles’ possession of swords was legal under Roman law.
It would seem very odd of the Romans to allow restive subject populations to carry arms freely.