I had to laugh at one response to a British man's tweet about firearms. Paul Samuel asked on January 16th:
Many of the responses were supportive - but this one put things in proper perspective, IMHO.
As so many commenters have pointed out for so long, owning a firearm isn't a question of whether we need one, or even if we want one. It's a natural right, rather than merely a legal right, and predates the US constitution (which recognized that natural, pre-existing right rather than conferring it - big difference!). Anyone trying to prevent us exercising that right is going to run into all sorts of resistance, whether they like it or not. It matters not whether they approve or disapprove. That's the bottom line.
Self-defense - a natural right - automatically implies the tools needed to do that. Both are natural rights, defense and tools. The Catholic Church goes so far as to explicitly recognize that in its basic teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Most, if not all major religions have a similar perspective on our right to self-defense, and (of necessity) our right to possess the tools necessary to exercise that right. Kinda puts things in perspective, no? What's more, paragraph 2265 above doesn't only apply to governments and their agencies. Parents hold the moral authority to defend those in their care against attack; and each of us holds the moral authority to defend ourselves and other innocent persons against attack. Since all of us "legitimately hold authority" in that sense, we also have the right to use the necessary tools to do so.