I believe Rauch's point is that the Second Amendment as protection of self defense with firearms isn't just about keeping a burglar out of one's home. It can also be about about a minority individual protecting himself from a crime of assault. Gun rights as minority rights.
I've advocated that for quite awhile now. My community needs to get over the fear and hysteria of guns, and start protecting themselves from the people that would otherwise prey on them and, as the article states, force them into victimhood. Gun rights are common sense, other than hunting, collections, and sport shooting, most people own guns, and especially handguns, to protect themselves. Mandating that they're trigger locked, and unloaded, at the home, is not only dangerous, it's criminally stupid. There was a case a number of years ago (where's Domer when you need him) when the city of Los Angeles was sued by a citizen who was harmed in the LA riots. The outcome of the decision was essentially that the city was not liable, because the police were not required to protect the public, or something very close to that effect.
I'm all for background checks to keep them out of the hands of felons and lunatics. I'm all for responsible education regarding firearms and reasonable safety precautions to prevent poaching (there's no reason to have a loaded long rifle loaded in a car driving down I-5, in my mind). I am not at all for a mandated, one size fits all approach.
As you know, I had an experience similar to the one the article mentions several years ago, only there were 5 of them, and not twenty. My pistol saved me and a friend from a severe beating at the very least. At the most, it saved our lives. That pistol also enabled me to hold the perpetrators at bay until the police could arrive, where they were arrested, arraigned, tried, and sentenced. Surprisingly, even in a very liberal city like Seattle, the police congratulated me for what I had done. I am glad that I made the choice to pack the pistol that night.
