Legal Commentary

I will confess to not having as strong a feeling about the D.C. gun control case as it seems most everyone else does, especially today. That being said, there's one idea/argument I haven't really seen anywhere that I'm curious about:

One of the major arguments in defense of an individual right, as I understand it, is the need for private self-defense -- for the ability of citizens to defend themselves from private, and not just governmental, violence. Taking that argument at face value, it seems to tie very closely together to the existence vel non of an affirmative right to governmental protection from private violence -- something the Supreme Court has treated with significant  (and, in my opinion, troubling) skepticism first in DeShaney v. Winnebago County and more recently in City of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

So here is my potentially naive question: If one takes the private self-defense argument seriously, mightn't that argument inevitably depend upon DeShaney and Castle Rock? Put another way, might there not be a potentially significant connection between whether one believes that there should be a right to police protection and whether one believes that there should be a right to protect one's self?