There is NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment that says the "right to bear arms" means there should be cheap or unfettered access to dangerous weapons. They're DANGEROUS, can we all at least agree on that? Requiring permits and safes and insurance in no way hinders the ultimate "right" to be armed. If you want to argue that this means only the rich will be able to afford guns, then the answer is perhaps. I can't go buy a Ferrari because I can't afford to maintain it. I can't buy a tiger because I can't properly take care of it. And if you can afford to spend thousands on weapons, you can afford a goddamn safe and insurance and every safety precaution necessary so that some kid or your mentally ill son can't get at it. And truly, you've got two hands, how many guns can you shoot at once to defend yourself?

Nor does the 2A say anything like, "And as many guns as you fucking want." Let's face it, the nutters HAVE ruined it for the rest of you "responsible owners". You didn't check that shit when the NRA was pushing their poison, so now you get to live with new rules.

(I'm sorry to say that I got into it on another thread and tried to get off the subject but here I am. I'm sure my new friends will be along shortly. I just cannot see how people can argue that their right to own killer toys trumps everyone else's right to live.)