Before thinking you might need to change my mind, you might study the FPJ and discovery what it says. The issue of gun ownership is the consent to be governed. The consent to be governed is the foundation of all political authority under this political system. According to Halbrook the citizenry has to be armed first before it can consent to be governed. Sovereignty is the defining attribute of a state.
Individual sovereigns are armed as sovereigns.
Contrary to Halbrook's ideological formulation, sovereigns do not consent to be governed and, therefore, do not acknowledge the legitimacy of government or any authority higher than themselves. They are deluded out of their political adulthood. These are points which, to my observation, you have not specifically made. That may be because you do not understand the fundamental concepts any more than does Diane Rehm or for that matter any elected official in this country. Your fundamental position still has to be analyzed on those terms.