Leave out the 2nd amendment, the NRA, liberal, conservative, whatever. Let me ask you to ask yourself a few questions:
Does a person have a right to defend themselves and their family from an attack?
if "yes", then:
Does a person have a right to do so with a means that can keep a larger or stronger attacker outside of arms reach?
Does a person have a right to defend themselves against multiple attackers?
If you made it past at least the first two questions with a "yes" answer, then you are saying that having an effective, ranged self-defense tool is something that is a right. If you made it past the third question, then you accept that having multiple shots or uses is part of that right. You might miss, there might be multiple attackers, you might want to fire a warning, etc.
Right now, there are three main technologies for ranged self-defense. They are pepper spray, tasers and guns. "Bean bag" guns used to be more common, but seem to have fallen out of favor with the increased popularity of tasers, and rubber bullets are generally only used by police, so I'm leaving those two off the list.
Pepper spray is pretty nasty, but can be dealt with (some of the Occupy web pages give preventative instructions!). It will take down a lot of people, but if you have twenty bucks you can go to a hardware or sporting goods store and pick up something that will protect you enough until you can get into arms reach and hit the SOB who sprayed you with a baseball bat. So, reliability is iffy.
plus: Doesn't take a lot of skill to use, inexpensive, non-lethal, legal to carry
minus: Indiscriminate spray, cheap countermeasures, least likely to stop the people you most want to stop (big, angry, motivated)
Tasers I have no personal experience with, but judging from the YouTube videos, they seem pretty effective. But they are limited in the number of shots (the best available is a three-shot taser that costs $1100), limited durability (manufacturer says "useful life" is 5 years) and they are too expensive to practice with (are you going to spend $30 per shot for a few hundred shots to become proficient with it?). The perceived non-lethality and lack of mess seems to encourage its use, like police tasering elementary school students. Really?
plus: Does a pretty good job, only kills people occasionally
minus: Too expensive to practice with, most are single shot devices, illegal in seven states, plus DC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York City, Chicago (note that some of these cities are extra bans in states where they were already banned)
Guns? They do the job, perhaps too well. Most of us, even RKBA supporters, would like the option of a threat that is sufficiently intimidating but without the risk of killing either the target or anyone downrange.
plus: Inexpensive to become proficient with, extremely effective
minus: Overkill (literally) in many cases, moral hazard. Carry/ownership/transport restrictions in many states, carry bans in a few.
Carrying a tool for self-defense is its own hazard. If you have any of the above items, are in a situation where you need to use it and you do not do so, then you run the very real risk of having it taken away from you and used against you or someone else. On the other hand, if you are defenseless, then you suffer the consequences of being attacked (robbery, rape, injury, etc.). There has to be sufficient willingness to use the tool, as well as competence to use it properly and the common sense to avoid situations that increase your risk of having to defend yourself in the first place.
Personal: I own guns. I own guns suitable for self-defense. I believe it is a fundamental right not because of the 2nd amendment, but because I answered "yes" for the three questions above and believe that guns are the most effective choice for my particular circumstances and my home (I also hunt, but that is a separate topic).
But I do not really desire a self-defense device that can punch through walls. If an attacker is on the other side of a barrier bigger or heavier than they can hold in front of them as a shield, they are probably not a threat to me. I generally do not carry a gun for self-defense because of that liability of firearms. That is a personal choice, because I live in an area where I can legally carry concealed if I so desire. The only reason I want power in a self-defense device is to incapacitate an attacker. When someone comes up with a device as effective as a taser and has the capacity and affordability to practice with as a pistol, I'll buy one and become proficient with it. Set phasers on stun...
Philosophical: Looking at the issue, what I am wondering is...
"How much of the recriminations, insults, demonization, moral inconsistency and lockstep ideology on the issue are between people who answered "yes" for all three questions but simply cannot accept the means by which someone else wants (or insists) it to be done?"