Mark
First of all, I don't believe that the right has have sole claim to the title of "liberty defenders" in our country. CFR had widespread bipartisan support. Some conservatives are just as confused about the first amendment as liberals are about the second. Furthermore, some RINOs are avid gun control advocates, while a few hardy Democrats have been staunch second amendment defenders. True defense of liberty is always a challenge, and usually requires deeper thinking and self-discipline than most are willing to commit. The simple solutions are rarely what the founding fathers had in mind. Disarming the populace to defend it against gun violence is one such "simple" solution that isn't a solution at all.
Second, armed citizens should always be a reassurance rather than a threat to their neighbors. But are we seen as keeping their safety in the highest regard? I would hope so, but it isn't always the case. Our success as a nation has made the need for everyone to remain armed less critical than was at the case at time of our nation's founding. Remaining unarmed is now a viable alternative in most areas of the country. Once again, explaining the need for a second amendment has become less of a clear-cut need for personal defense (which is the easiest way to encourage people to become second amendment supporters) and more of an exercise in teaching history. We can still outline a future in which Americans give up their responsibility for personal and community defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We can argue that our nation's viability will not last long after we finally make that choice. History would bear out that argument.
But argue we must. In a nation with such economic prosperity of ours, the pen is far mightier than the sword. Our obligation as loyalists and patriots is to do the explaining as often as it takes. Once we have painted a clear picture in the minds of our fellow citizens of how their prosperity and personal safety depends on victories obtained and defended by firearms, many will stand by us even when they personally do not feel a need to arm themselves.
Patrick Henry warned during the Virginia Ratifying Convention debates over adoption of the present Constitution:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
Force. It's all that tyrants understand, and in the hands of principled, upright citizens it serves as a quiet, understated deterrence against the unthinkable. Today, we make our case with words so that we need not mention the force that backs them. But we will defend our rights. But our goal in a more sophisticated society where violence is rare should be to reassure and educate our fellow citizens. They are are continually told that the second amendment is a dangerous anachronism that isn't protected at the state level. We need to prove to them that as individual gun owners, we are safe, responsible, and on their side, just like the collective militias were at the founding of our country.