Actually, the Right to own arms is always centered around the potential need to defend against tyranny. As far as "stable democratic environment' goes, none is. At best there is a balance, precariously maintained between the interests of the populace and the government, and that balance can be disturbed rapidly by a number of factors. Stability is at best, a short-termed illusion throughout history.
It would be pure folly to assume 'it can't happen here', thus, defense against tyranny is always foremost.
In the absence of an armed populace, how long does the writer think stability would be maintained? Only 70 years ago, Britain felt the eyes of a conqueror lusting to invade. Even now, it is infiltrated by multiculturalists who would gladly rule and defile that 'stable democratic environment' with their particular brand of (theocratic) totalitarianism.
It is so “safe” in England where handguns are outlawed that a soldier was beheaded in the street in London. Had anyone nearby been armed, the soldier would still be alive.
Thousands of Brits are leaving England for France, where the people are armed.