The only logical inconsistency I can find in this gent's arguments is that the
obligation of a government to improve its citizens' lives is generally regarded by liberals as a declaration of its primacy in matters of personal defense as opposed to the individual's, hence the subordination of an individual's rights to self-defense to the collective. Further, that such a right exists only in the form more properly termed a privilege, subject to revocation by the collective if its state agents consider that it is advantageous to the collective to actually replace that right with a "right" to a state-provided defense and only that.
It is the interposition of the state that comstitutes the fundamental difference between liberal and conservative (at least in their modern American definition). And as firearms possession is an individual right this fellow, although well-intentioned, must sooner or later come up against that.
comstitutes = constitutes. Illiterate...liberal!