I believe the right to self-defense is inherent in all living beings.
Everything that lives and has a brain, has some will to survive and continue living, and will fight or flee attempts to take its life.
So it is with people. Virtually every human being will fight or flee someone attempting to kill him.
If we believe murder (unjust homicide) is wrong, then it follows that the inborn desire to live, the instinctive willingness to fight against being murdered, must be right. Therefore I consider self-defense to be a natural right of all humanity, not granted by people or government but inborn.
Given that disarming criminals simply isn't a practical solution (ie it doesn't work), it follows that honest citizens must be allowed the necessary tools to defend themselves against criminals. Firearms are the most effective tools.
If self-defense is a natural right, then having the means to engage in effective self-defense against the common threat of the armed criminal is also a natural right.
The problem with this poll and question from the very beginning is, who defines what constitutes "reasonable regulations"?
Infringing on a natural right, with prior-restraint laws, is wrong. Only those items that have no use to individual self-defense or service in the unorganized militia (which is all the people) can be rightfully restricted; or those individuals who have demonstrated their unfitness due to committing violent crime, or addiction to substances that severely impair judgement, or potentially dangerous insanity/incapacity.