I think the next step in gun rights will sound oddly authoritarian, but is just the opposite of authoritarian: a legal *requirement* to be armed with a gun.
To explain, I knew of a judge who was sick of domestic violence cases with the same beaten women appearing before him time and again, and his protection orders ignored by everyone.
So he came up with the profound solution to use a bench order to *require* that these abused women be armed when in public, and to carry a copy of the bench order to show on demand to anyone who questioned her being armed.
And, being a good guy, if the women were too poor to afford a gun and ammo, he would stake them to both, out of his pocket.
It had a powerful effect. The number of women appearing before him twice dropped to zero.
But in any event, I think this *philosophy* should become the next idea in gun rights. To *require* citizens in many circumstances to be armed, whether or not they would be if left to their own devices.
Compare it to other Rights. Would there ever be a case where the government could require us to exercise our rights of free speech? Would anybody have to listen?