Or just a government wishing to avoid an armed attack preventing it from enforcing controls the public does not wish to succumb to.
(SNIP)
As we discuss below, the common law as well as the statutes of every state permit the private use of deadly force when necessary for self-protection. However, it appears to be the considered view of many reputable people that this forbearance is obsolete if not depraved. Furthermore, many gun owners seem to support keeping firearms less as a crime-fighting tool than as a political statement about individual sovereignty and the value of self-rule. It is therefore necessary to elucidate the legal and moral status both of fearful householders and proto-insurrectionists who assert the right to possess firearms.
The primary purpose of every gun owner I know in owning a firearm is to provide security for themselves and their family until the local LEO's can arrive to contend with the attacker/s.
(SNIP)
For example, Betty Friedan has called the trend of women buying guns "a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism."[12] She believes "that lethal violence even in self-defense only engenders more lethal violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety." [13]
Sorry, Friedan, but individual security comes first because court decisions have determined that inadeqate protection by local LEO's is not considered dereliction of duty.
A man attacking my wife with the intention of rape or other equally horrify criminal act will never get his chance to meet with a jury. That pre-determination is made by the criminal not my wife.
(I will continue to review this article later)