What I am arguing is that these words exist in a context of reality, and that this reality is that your rights are bracketed by mine. Nobody's rights trump anothers, and therefore we must analyze the ability of you to wield a weapon to positive effect without damaging my rights.
It is for this reason I have analyzed the indisriminate nature of the various forms of weaponry. Those that are excessively indiscriminate cannot be useful to you within the context of the failure to violate my rights.
And if you and your family are alone (for all intents and puposes) in the wilderness, and 100 invaders approach your home intent on killing you and your sons, raping your wife and daughters, stealing your property, destroying your home, you expect me to fight back with "discriminate" weapons? I want something to KILL every one of them. It's not a question of a "fair" fight - it DEFENSE - whatever it takes.
Whatever rights they had were abrogated the instant they invaded. I could care less about the "rights" of criminals. Since they have violated my rights, I maintain that not allowing me to defend myself or family - as needs dictate - is the theft of my rights.