I'm pretty sure there are no conditionals in the law. The constitution doesn't say much about taxation, as the founders didn't really like that topic. On a serious note, the government is taxing you without your permission anyways.

Of course a right is contingent on you being able to afford it - but you should only have to be able to afford to exercise the right in its inherent definition, not including any burden the government might decided to place on you. A good example of prohibition by taxation is 1934 NFA (a $200 tax on $2 guns - according to you, perfectly OK).

To address your other points, felons have been denied some rights by due process (legal), children and the insane have been deemed not fully responsible for their actions and thus do not have all associated rights.

If you'd read the Federalist papers to see what the founders thought the 2nd amendment should represent, you would understand that it meant that the individual should be able to possess the same arms that any individual in the military could have - the rationale being that individuals would always greatly outnumber a standing army. Thus the only thing on your list that would be inappropriate would be the nuke (and in case you didn't know, fully automatic weapons aren't illegal under federal law).

Uh, no. You don't need a large government to do the following:

Enforce contracts

Punish fraud

That's it. That's all you need the government to do relating to work. Why else you would need to do anything? If you aren't earning enough, you go on strike or you quit. A business can't run with no employees, so eventually an equilibrium price for your labor is found.

Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

There is no right to drive a car on a public road (it's a privilege), and you are allowed to drive a car on your own property without insurance.

Why would you make something illegal that is already illegal?

This is only true in the presence of a large, corrupt government, which is what we are trying to avoid with capitalism.

The first point is irrelevant if the same was true before gun control was instituted.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

The second point is misleading to the point of being useless.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

The Daily Mail is quite obviously not the source of the information, it was just the first place I found that hosted this.

tl;dr http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg

I'm not even going to dignify that with my own response. http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

Therefore people who cannot afford a safe do not have the right to keep and bear arms.

Except that the black market is already so well established that this wouldn't do anything.

Except that UK's violent crime rate is nearly 5x that of the US and has only been increasing since the gun bans in the 1970s, rendering all your arguments useless.

That's an absolute lie.

80% of millionaires are first generation, not the other way around.

http://www.money-zine.com/Investing/Investing/The-7-Top-Ways-Millionaires-Become-Wealthy/