'Legitimate' Self Defense?

A quote from Ladd Everitt/Tim Johnson who-ever is writing this nonsense nowadays:

Outside of their belief that tyrannical dictators slaughtering millions of people can be reasoned w/,  one wonders how they define 'legitimate'.  It doesn't include a woman defending themselves against serial abusers, they, according to the CSGV, have a 'duty to retreat' from their own homes.  It doesn't include even their own homes  as Ladd Everitt states:

The risk of them gaining access to those weapons, or some other unauthorized party gaining access to them, is far greater than the chance of me ever having to play John McClane defending against some faceless home invader. 

 It doesn't include even legally adjudicated cases of self defense (note the use of quotes to disparage the concept).  It doesn't even include the people of Washington DC as the CSGV filed a brief in support of the handgun ban and disabled firearm requirements stating in response:

  the United States Supreme Court departed from over 100 years of earlier judicial decisions and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense purposes unconnected with service in a militia. 

  So what instance would be a 'legitimate' case of self defense w/ a firearm for the CSGV? Why, in every instance, do they attack or oppose acts of self-defense?

Could it possibly be because they really don't care about 'violence' and only about restricting guns in every and any way possible?

Naaah.

More of these mental gymnastics at GunFreeZone.