One of the chief problems I have with folks who claim that the right outlined in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution means that ANY attempt to regulate gun ownership is anathema to the right itself is that they conveniently ignore the first part of said amendment. You know, the part about "a well regulated militia!"
You see, the Founding Fathers were opposed to the idea of a standing army and desired to have armed citizens who could fill the role of soldiers, IF and WHEN the need arose. We no longer have citizen militias in which citizens supply their own weapons. Consequently, if we no longer abide by the first part of the Second Amendment, why is the second part considered so sacrosanct?
As I have stated before, people read the US Constitution much like Christians read the bible. They hold onto the parts they agree with and ignore the rest! They talk about the "original intentions" of the Founding Fathers when those intentions agree with their current interpretations, but completely disregard those same "original Intentions" when those intentions undermine their own beliefs and perspectives.
You know, I'd be willing to compromise with the rabid gun rights activists on the implementation of the 2nd Amendment. If they would get their dander up to demand an end to a standing armed forces, then I would agree to pare back my calls for greater regulation of private firearms. The problem is that the vast majority of them are ardent supporters of our military-industrial complex -- something the Founding Fathers were opposed to!!