[vincentfreeman]

"but I agree that it can't constitutionally be denied to others."

Even fundamental rights, like speech, may be reasonably regulated by Congress. The right to keep and bear arms is no exception.

Is there a reason why you think an exception for this right above all others should be made?

[Stat-boy]

I understand your point, but to be precisely true:
Fundamental rights are subject to a strict scrutiny standard, not just a reasonable standard. This means [from Wiki]:

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

1. First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
2. Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
3. Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this ‘least restrictive means’ requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

I would be very, very happy—would probably jump for joy—if the SC held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right [which it should do].

[Question_Assumptions]

Read the working of the various amendments. The second is unqualified in scope or range and fairly strongly worded. The First was limited to Congress, the assumption being that the states would regulte things like obscenity and slander. Please note that I'm not saying how I think things should be and I can certainly see the justification for some regulation. I'm simply pointing out that, as worded, the second amendment isn't qualified and if we want to qualify it, we should actually amend the Constitution rather than just pretending it says things that it doesn't or doesn't say things that it clearly does.

[wastedyears]

If the right to bear arms is not absolute, then government will try anything and everything they can to make it harder to own arms. And I’m talking about an anti-aircraft gun on your roof if you so desire (and can afford it).