It is quite likely true that SOME men compensate for sexual inadequacy by obtaining ever greater fire power. Mr. Conte, however, paints with a very broad brush when he infers that (all) men who own these (fully automatic) are compensating for sexual inadequacy.
The majority of your post, to which I'm responding, appears to me to be blather, especially the gender substitutions. I would be as upset with the statement that an armed man is a citizen, an unarmed woman is his subject, than reversing the genders as you did.
How about an armed person is a citizen, an unarmed person is a subject. Is that better?