It’s clear to liberty-minded folk that one ought to be able to defend against attacks and oppression, and that efforts to ensure one is capable of doing so shouldn’t be restricted, so long as those efforts don’t pose an undue risk to anyone who isn’t threatening another’s life or well-being (e.g., Claymores or nukes would infringe on others’ natural right to continue living).
What’s less clear to people who have great fears about firearms and big trust in government as a benevolent protector is exactly how people in the U.S. could possibly suffer oppression. These fearful/trusting individuals won’t usually want to deny a right of self defense, but they believe that laws can be crafted that affect criminal use of firearms without negatively affecting anyone else. I assume that, for most of these folks, at the heart of the matter is a genuine desire to stop or inhibit violence and death; they just don’t take into account the myriad variables in the equation of weapons as enablers.
If there were a third camp here in the firearms debate it would be one that nobody admits to being in. Comprised of those actively scheming to repress or remove effective means of defense against control and tyranny, it could have no voice without compromising its chances of success. If they publicly stated their desire even fearful/trusting individuals would likely reject such a plan; no one likes being oppressed or tyrannized.
But since would-be oppressors and tyrants couldn’t be open about their desires and still ensure cooperation, they would allow and possibly even encourage and/or equip the fearful/trusting crowd to advocate for laws that would inhibit or eliminate threats to their desired control, under the more-honorable guise of protecting innocent lives.
Good thing there’s no third camp, right?