In one recent post I gave my opinion to a question as to specifics. I believe there is a legitimate balance to be made between an individual's right to own arms, and a government's duty to protect its citizenry. Nor did anything in the quotes you reflected say any different. Law abiding citizens have the right and should be permitted to own firearms. Need is not at issue, but security and safety is. No citizen has an unfettered right to own any type of weapon he can afford to purchase, if that weapon has the capability of destabilizing or destroying the security of our society.
You are now openly saying that ownership of any weapon capable "-- of destabilizing or destroying the security of our society --" can be "fettered".
Are machine guns capable "-- of destabilizing or destroying the security of our society --"?
I guess that would include "sniper" rifles, aka deer rifles or elk rifles. Or for that matter, cheap pistols. The use of one of those destabilized the heck out of the Austria-Hungarian Empire, and most of Europe for that matter.