In a classic libertarian analysis, I think these communities would be treated equally. Since property rights are paramount, I should be able to buy a hundred square miles of land, develop a village, and sell all the houses in it subject to a no-guns rule. If someone wants to own an gun, he has a right to go live somewhere else. Since I will refer to this hypothetical village again in the debate, let me name it Walden Township. They overlap libertarians by wanting the government uninvolved in their pet issue in a particular way, but not necessarily in other issues or other ways.
Many civil libertarians favor a government role in welfare, health, etc.
Many Second Amendment fans would be happy to see laws passed that would forbid me to ban guns in Walden Township, even though I am the developer and owner. John Trentes and I will be exchanging messages concentrating on the law, practicalities and morality pertaining to guns and gun control. These three areas of consideration typically get mushed together, especially in mailing list flamewars, but are quite independent of each other. For example, a particular government action may be legal, and practical, but highly immoral. None of these three qualities compels the existence of any other.