Murder vs self-defense. It's odd how many people get confused. Often this confusion happens when individuals are involved, but the confusion is nearly universal when discussing governments.
Governments never engage in true self-defense. Governments have no rights because they are collectives, so they can't have a right to defend themselves. When a government-- or those acting on behalf of a government-- kills people, it's always murder.
If Government A murders a bunch of people, so Government B kills a bunch of people in reaction, it's murder. Murder committed by people acting on behalf of Government B.
A lot of people are OK with this, or even enthusiastic for it. This is why the world situation is such as it is.
The populations of the world should be armed sufficiently so that if Government A sends murderers (or thieves, vandals, rapists, or any sort of archators) to harm them, the individuals targeted can act in self-defense and kill (or otherwise decisively thwart) the thugs doing Government A's bidding. If Government B prevents this with anti-weapon rules, Government B is complicit in the crimes of Government A. Both governments are equally evil and responsible.
You might complain that this isn't the world we live in, but by pretending it's OK, that governments can kill in self-defense or prevent individuals from owning and carrying the most effective tools of self-defense, you are guaranteeing a stupid, deadly situation will go on longer than it otherwise would. Anyone contributing to this twisted status quo isn't helping.
Government is a murder machine. The lie of government self-defense is the ammunition it uses.
