Since the governments (Federal, State, and Local) can't guarantee your security, should you be able to secure yourself?

The above is but one of several where the federal courts have held that the police have no obligation to protect any individual. Basically if you don't protect yourself probably no one else will. It is also true that in many cases the police have no authority to stop a crime before it is actually committed. Police investigate crimes after they have happened.

PVT James Strait Remember the Oath. I do solemnly swear to support & defend the Constitution.... It doesn't say People. Everything is "implied" and goes back to the Preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

But even that doesn't say "Protect." It implies it with "Common Defense" but that is a Collective Protection, as compared to an Individual Protection.

If we go from Macro (Federal) to Micro (State or Local), all these rules & philosophies are also in place. Government is not in place to "protect" the individual. It has never been. It's there to "sustain" (support) society at most. The verbiage, as I said, implies a great deal, which leads us to incorrectly infer much more than it actually says. This allows those with Granted Power (Agents of the Government) to continually reach for more, while whittling away at the Rights & Protection of said Rights of the Citizenry.

One of the primary manifest duties of the United States government, per the United States Constitution, is to "provide for the common defense of the Nation". This is a role that is currently abdicated per political policy.