Here is the best argument I can come up with for RKBA... It doesn't seek to equate RKBA with any other civil right or preexistant basis for outrage, such as race, religion, freedom of press, etc., but attempts to build a position from presuppositions that any reasonable person can agree with (of course, an irrational person cannot be reasoned with or convinced of anything, which is the weakness of such an argument... in which case, as the adage states, "Do not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person, for they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience").
Here is my argument:
1) Self-defense is a bodily function that, like eating, breathing, or even reproducing, cannot be safely or effectively delegated to another. Every living thing knows self-defense - even single-celled organisms have cell membranes. Self-defense is inseparable from self-preservation, and in that sense, is no different from finding shelter from the sun or water to drink.
2) Just as humans have an undeniable, basic right to seek shelter, nourishment, and a mate with whom to reproduce, so too do they have an undeniable, basic right to defend themselves against the threat of violence. To continue to exist is the most fundamental of all human rights, civil or otherwise.
3) It is not possible to separate the right to self defense from the tools necessary to effect said defense. Humans use tools to solve problems of all sorts - it is one factor that separates us from lower species (though there are many others). When other humans attack or threaten us, and we have the already-established right to defend our lives (self-preservation), to deny us the effective and efficient tools with which to do so is to effectively deny us the right to defend ourselves. To say a human has a right to eat but may not use tools to cultivate a field, slay an animal or build a fire is to mandate starvation. To deny the use of tools for defense is synonymous with mandating submission, even to death.
4) Mandating submission to death is a violation of the most basic human right - the right to continue to exist.
5) Therefore, any measure or philosophy that would seek to strip a human being of modern, effective and efficient tools for self-defense - i.e. firearms - is to oppress a human's right to exist at all, which is, at a fundamental level, the most basic of all wrongs. Such a wrong requires an appropriate response by the oppressed party.
6) A feeling of outrage is the most modest response acceptable to such a measure or philosophy. If the measure were actually implemented, appropriate ACTIONS, beyond mere feelings, would become necessary. To fail to do so would be to surrender the means by which a human may continue to exist.
Essentially, I believe that the right to survive, to continue to exist, is inseparable from the tools necessary to ensure such survival. The anti-gun mindset that would deprive us of these toos would, by definition, require us to surrender our lives and risk death. This is unacceptable.
ETA Also, may I note that anyone who denies presuppositions 1 or 2 is your enemy outright, believing humans are neither inherantly free, nor should they be. The rest of the argument will not follow, since they believe humans should be controlled and see no use for self defense by mere subjects; however, this is irrelevant, as they have established themselves and their universal beliefs as being fundamentally backward and evil.
