I have been thinking about the argument that if there are limitations on the first amendment, there should be limitations on the second amendment.
People like to point out that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. They are wrong. You can. If you do, that speech won't be protected. You can go to jail.
The thing is, everyone has the potential to yell fire, yet no one can do anything about it until you do.
The second amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. Anyone with arms has the potential to do bad things... but you can't go around trying to restrict someone's rights because the might do something wrong.
The price we pay for preventing the infringement of our freedoms is safety. Sure, things would be a little safer if we could go arrest all the people who we think might do something that would endanger others, but then you would have to accept being arrested for something that someone else thinks you might potentially do.
The point here is that the constitution doesn't grant rights. It protects them. It applies after the fact. You have the ability to say anything, but only some of it might be protected. That which isn't protected by the first amendment may be subject to penalty. You have the ability to keep any firearm you want and do with it what you please. Keeping and bearing (having at the ready) is protected. Beyond that may be subject to penalty.
Bingo. This is the analogy I've used when confronted with the 'fire in a theater' trope. "I can still tell fire, I'll just go to jail. My ability to SPEAK isn't impeded, just what I can do with that speech. Just as I can't use a gun for illegal purposes without going to jail. Your restricting my 2nd Amendment rights is the equivalent of removing my vocal cords.