I'd try this way.
First its clear that we need government to handle certain things, like crime and punishment. It would not work to leave it to those directly involved to settle matters as that would surely get out of hand.
2nd. There would need to be limits on the authority of government otherwise having a government might be worse than not having one. One of those limits is the right to keep and bear arms.
"He that shall oppose an assault only with a shield to receive the blows, or in any more respectful posture, without a sword in his hand to abate the confidence and force of the assailant, will quickly be at an end of his resistance…..This will always be the event of such an imaginary resistance, where men may not strike again. He, therefore, who may resist must be allowed to strike. And then let our author, or anybody else, join a knock on the head or a cut on the face with as much reverence and respect as he thinks fit He that can reconcile blows and reverence may, for aught I know, deserve for his pains a civil, respectful cudgeling wherever he can meet with it."
Last that the authority granted to a legislature is in itself a delegated authority and therefore cannot be delegated by the legislature (set up agencies).
His ideas are the basis for the justification and establishment of most representative governments either directly or indirectly. Although I'm not aware of any that adhere to his ideas of limited government.
You really should read it for yourself. Once you wade through the old style of english its got some funny parts like the part about the guy getting beat with a stick.
