In America, anyone can own an automobile. If you are able to afford one, you can purchase one. If someone you know wants to give you one, they can. And if you want to give one to someone, you can, too. America is great!
But, if you want to drive that automobile, you can if you meet certain requirements. First, you must be old enough to acquire a driver's license, and to obtain a driver's license you must past a written test and a road test in most if not all states. These tests are to ensure that (1) you are familiar with the laws governing driving an automobile, and (2) that you can handle the vehicle sufficiently under most conditions. For example, if you are blind, you cannot handle a vehicle sufficiently to ensure the safety of yourself and others. Similarly, if you don't understand what a yellow traffic light means, you jeopardize the safety of others as well as yourself. Therefore, knowing & understanding the laws regarding operation of a vehicle are critical to obtaining your driver's license.
Once you have your driver's license, you are free to drive your vehicle wherever you desire, right? For example, if you wish to drive to the grocery store, or to visit grandma, or take your children to school, you are free to do so. But, you must obey certain restrictions. For example, you cannot drive your vehicle on the left side of the roadway, or on a sidewalk. You cannot drive at any speed, but must obey speed restrictions posted on the roads. You cannot drive your vehicle at night without proper lights. You cannot drive the wrong way down a one-way street. The point is, these constraints are imposed by law to ensure the safety of yourself and others.
Furthermore, there are constraints on the type of vehicle you may own and operate in public. You cannot own & operate an 18-wheel semi without the proper driver's license for that type of vehicle. You cannot own an Abrahms tank or a mobile missile launcher and drive it down a public roadway.
Freedom of ownership does not imply you may own whatever you wish to own nor does it imply use without constraints, and the primary, if not sole, reason is public safety. Freedoms are not unrestricted. We all have the freedom to live safely in America, and that freedom trumps all others. You have the right to worship as you please, but you may not worship by conducting human sacrifice. You have the right to play your stereo as loud as you please providing it does not disturb your neighbor's right to peace & quiet.
Why should gun ownership be any different than vehicle ownership? "The right to bear arms" does NOT mean you may own any type of armament you desire. You cannot own a grenade launcher, nor a so-called "dirty bomb" nor a nuclear warhead. You may not own an ICBM nor a landmine. In other words, you may not own arms meant for mass-destruction or mass-killings. There is absolutely no reason any civilian needs such weapons nor any legitimate circumstance for their civilian use.
When the US Constitution was written, this country was a far, far different country than it is today. There were legitimate needs for having a rifle or handgun - hunting for food, and personal protection of self & family. Although some may argue today that those needs no longer exist, there are still individuals who do hunt for food, who do hunt to protect their livestock from wildlife predators, and those who do live in remote areas that cannot rely upon local law enforcement agents for protection. And yes, there are those who simply want to ensure their personal safety and that of their family by owning a firearm.
Those who wish to hunt - for food or simply for sport - should be able to own a rifle or shotgun. And those who wish to own a firearm for home security and personal protection, should be able to own a pistol. If someone is breaking into your home, you cannot rely on the local police arriving there instantly to prevent home invasion. But the right to own a weapon does NOT come without constraints. First, just as you need to do to own & operate a vehicle, you need to be licensed, aka have a gun permit. And in order to obtain that license, you need to pass certain requirements to determine if you are able to operate that weapon safely. That is the true reason for gun permits - public safety. And for public safety, there needs to be constraints on the type of weapon you may own and use. There is no legitimate reason to own a weapon meant for mass destruction/mass killing. Just like you select the type of vehicle to meet your intended use, you should select the type of weapon for your intended use. If you intend to hun, you purchase a hunting rifle. If your intent is personal protection, you select a pistol. If you purchase a high-capacity fully-automatic weapon, you intend to kill large numbers quickly and indiscriminately. THAT is the reason there needs to be restrictions on the sale of high-capacity fully-automatic weapons.
No reasonable person should be promoting the elimination of your "constitutional right to bear arms". I think the problem with the current national conversation is that it is focused entirely on banning specific types of weapons; it is far too easy for people to jump from "banning AK-47s" to "banning all firearms". The conversation should not concentrate on banning firearms but rather emphasize the public's right to ownership of hunting and personal protection firearms. Maybe we should change the language from "gun permit" to "firearm license" so that people subconsciously equate it to a driver's license with all that that implies. But most importantly, put the banning of any specific type of firearm within the context of protecting the public's right to hunting and personal protection firearms so that the NRA and others cannot easily make the jump to banning all firearms.
Finally, it is critically important to recognize the role firearms has played in the entire history of this country. Some would say that it is now a part of the American DNA. As a young boy, I played old west Sherriff with my cap pistol, and soldier with my cap rifle hunting down Nazis. The most popular type of TV show was the western. Like it or not, there is no denying that firearms are a part of our culture and as such that will not change. What can change is the types of firearms the public is allowed to own and use, and the determination of who may own one. But that change is not possible with the current federal legislature. Everyone bitches and moans about Congress, yet they continue to re-elect their Congressmen over and over again. Apparently it is everyone else's Congressman that needs to be ousted, not mine! So long as we continue to re-elect the same legislators, we cannot expect change. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome." Yes, it is insanity!