He is right, you are willing to concede the ability to set rules for everyone to the legislature.
Right now, another legislature is considering doing the same exact thing, telling property owners what the best course of action is to defend themselves, with strikingly dissimilar results.
San Francisco Fails to Learn from D.C.
San Francisco supervisors propose sweeping gun ban
San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.
The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.
Barnes said the initiative is a response to San Francisco's skyrocketing homicide rate, as well as other social ills. There have been 86 murders in the city so far this year compared to 70 in all of 2003.
"The hope is twofold, that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it," -- SourceDo legislative bodies have the right to violate property rights in the name of what they believe is the best course of action for the people to defend themselves when it comes to gun possession?
According to you, they do, so if you're arguing in support of the Oklahoma State legislature's right to set policy for property owners there, then you must be equally in support of the California State legislature doing the same thing here.
In a nutshell jonesy, when you involve government, they will screw you sooner rather than later.
When you argue that the government has the right to violate some rights, you risk all rights being violated by the government.