It is then argued that our inalienable right to self defense does not include using a gun because if it did, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one and they don't; -- which is faulty logic.
If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent.
Case closed. [to those with logical, open minds]
There is no restriction on using any weapon for self-defense, although there are restrictions against possessing certain weapons. Thus, a felon can be charged with illegally possessing a firearm but not for using that firearm in self defense; he (as well as non-felons) can also be charged with using a certain weapon in the commission of a crime, or for using a weapon that is deemed, under the circumstances, to constitute excessive force (for instance, it’s possible for someone to be charged with using excessive force if he or she employs a shotgun and his or her foe is threatening, but unarmed. Notice I said POSSIBLE, because it may be reasonable and legally acceptable for a 95-pound woman to use a shotgun against a 250-pound rapist who is unarmed and out-of-control on PCP). But there is no legal restriction on the books for using a particular weapon FOR SELF DEFENSE.