That wasn't what I said. If you call the police to help deal with an intruder, do you think they have a legal obligation to put themselves in harms way to protect you?
The question wasn't whether you think they
should have the duty to protect people, the question is whether they actually have that legal duty.
In the US, they do not, despite all the bluster about oaths to "serve and protect" they have no such duty. In fact a private citizen who has signed exactly the same contract is more legally liable to do it than the police, despite the police being infinitely more suitable for the task.
If the police have no legal duty to protect people, then that duty must fall on the individuals themselves, which requires the right to own firearms.
In Uvalde, the police stood outside a school with a gunman inside it because they don't have the duty to defend the lives of people.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61877914
Look at SAPS when the proles are on a looting spree, does SAPS defend the property of people despite it being written into the constitution of the country that their job is to defend property.
View attachment 1487791
Yet here in the video below, the Police are standing by and allowing the looting to take place, despite them having a constitutional directive to protect people's property.
That is why the second amendment exists.