So it is a good thing that nobody has mentioned getting rid of the right to bear arms, except for a few knee-jerk types.
I don't often hear US citizens complain about not being able to have their own nuclear weapons for self-defense and yet that is illegal.
Ill complain, I say if you can afford a nuclear weapon then you should be able to have one. This really is a stupid argument, Nuclear weapons are large, have many moving parts, cost billions to buy and have multiple million $ maintenance costs. It is the equivalent of comparing a rubber band airplane to a 787 jet liner. I can afford a windup airplane, Very few people can afford a 787.
The second amendment reads
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
From "District of Columbia v Heller". Supreme.justia.com. Retrieved August 30, 2010.
In Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.