Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller was a tonic for those of us, as Paul notes, waiting in various states of anxiety to learn whether the Robed Masters, ever inclined to practice the techniques of deconstruction upon law, precedent, and both the grammar and syntax of the English language, would again dabble in the black arts. It is, in a word, pathetic - pathetic that this is what the Republic has come to, pathetic that more of us are not prepared to - if the phrase may be pardoned - man the barricades of self-government against such grotesqueries. We have become acculturated to a regime in which each branch of government routinely disgraces itself, so much so that most mistake dysfunction for vitality.
Not everyone, though, was so well pleased by the ruling. In point of fact, it has even been argued that the proscription of the private possession of firearms is integral to the common good, and that opposition to gun control has its origins in Enlightenment theories of individuality, asserted over against the common good. I'll note, in passing, that Feddie of Southern Appeal, who has written an excellent synopsis of the logic of Heller, dispenses with this argument within the span of a few dozen comments in the extensive thread, at least as a legal matter. Rather, however, than descending into the slough of political philosophy in order to demonstrate the errors of assimilating gun control to the common good, and of equating firearms possession with invidious Enlightenment individualism, I'd prefer to make a simpler demonstration.
In 2005, the Court handed down its decision in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, a case which had its genesis in the failure of a police department to enforce a "shall arrest" restraining order against an estranged husband, who proceeded to kill his three daughters after abducting them from the home of his wife, and subsequently was killed in a shootout with police. Gonzales filed suit, claiming violations of substantive and procedural due process rights, and the Tenth Circuit found in her favour, albeit only on the procedural basis. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Tenth Circuit, on the grounds that a mandate for the enforcement of the order would not generate an individual right to its enforcement, but that, even if it did generate such a right, such a right could not be considered property under the due process clause. The decision was, though controversial, in accord with established precedent. Even more philosophically, the notion of an individual claim right upon the protection of the authorities cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, the authorities lacking omniscience and omnipotence as powers, many crimes would still occur, generating liabilities on the part of the authorities and their officers. One cannot be held liable for a failure to perform the impossible. The very notion, off at the end, would render governance impossible.
The upshot of the case, therefore, is that there obtains no individual right to protection provided by the authorities from malefactors.
According, moreover, to the detractors of Heller, neither is there an individual right to the most effective, equalizing means of self-defense. In fact, self-defense is apparently a dubious concept only tenuously connected to the common good.
Hence, in this equation, one has no claim right to protection provided by the state, and one has no effective right to self-defense. The common good itself stipulates powerlessness before the random criminal evils of this world. Manifestly, this is absurd, a species of utopianism - at best, the fantasy that the elimination of all implements of violence, along with the alleged "root causes" of criminality, will produce a peaceful society - and at worst, a piece of anarcho-tyranny, by which the lawful majority are to be bludgeoned into submission by both crime and petty proscriptions, the better to impose some whackaloon scheme of social reconstruction. In this instance, it is obviously the former, though I suspect many on the left fall into the latter category. It is, in any event, a violation of the common good for the fundamental units of society, families, to be left bereft of defenses against predation and savagery.
Which is why the Second Amendment, and the rights it enshrines, are in fact integral to the common good, and not contrary thereto.