[AkshatM]

The argument that gun ownership = right to self-defense is a non-sequitur. Self-defense is a recognized legal justification for the use of force in the States already.

What you're really talking about is either one of a few different statements offered up about guns, none of which really add up:

1. "Guns can be used to defend yourself from a tyrannous government" (a wholly impractical proposition - you're not going to stop the third largest army on their own home turf with a small cabal of renegade soldiers. You could even argue this is an irresponsible proposition, because government needs your participation as a stakeholder and beneficiary to improve, not your suspicion. If a civil situation gets to the point where the only way out is to overthrow a corrupt government, you don't need a constitutional right to guns to accomplish that - the original American revolutionaries certainly did not)

2. "Guns can be used to defend yourself from other people in the failure or absence of law enforcement intervention" (sure, but this property is not unique to guns - carry mace or a switchblade, weapons that limit unintended damage)

There's nothing a gun can't do that safer weapons can't accomplish, and nothing a gun could do that would alter the equation in favour of needing them. Perhaps there's a reason why guns are needed as a right that I am not aware of, and I'd be open to hearing it, but on the whole there's nothing really going for them.