The core "self-defense" argument for a right to bear arms derives from a fundamental right to preserve oneself from harm, conjoined with empirical facts about technology, the reliability of police protection, and reasonably expected threats. Given a right to defend oneself against reasonably expected threats, and given that a firearm provides the only practicable means of self-defense, a right to bear arms can be inferred. Further, a right to bear arms makes it possible for citizens to resist their government should it become a rogue government. The further effect of an armed citizenry is to increase the costs and thus reduce the likelihood of rogue behavior by government. Those who would seek to reduce crimes of violence by disarming citizens would in effect treat guns like illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine. It is clear from this effort that what multitudes of citizens desire cannot ultimately be denied them, even when laws forbid it. Further, disarming citizens is morally questionable, since a gun is the only practicable means in some situations to engage in adequate self-defense. Further, empirical evidence suggests that collectively, governments are more violent and dangerous than citizens. Given this tendency in governments, a democracy should offer citizens the right to bear arms as one of a battery of rights a citizen may use to resist a government that abuses and exceeds its constitutional powers. 14 notes