When I was talking about direct costs, I meant direct costs - $'s coming out of our wallets. And I should have been more clear, I meant that the 2nd is the only one of the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments, that has a direct cost to us in order to exercise the right.

I understand the privacy arguement and I tend to agree with it in principle. And Aunty, even though I am absolutely not in favor of the 2nd Amendment, that does not mean I want to overturn it. I believe that a repeal of the 2nd Amendment or a significant curtailing of the rights inherent, are a political non-starter. But, the courts have ruled that there can exist "reasonable restrictions". We can't own machine guns, or nuclear devices. Clearly, I am not a gun owner, but the only arguement that I have heard in this thread that portrays this as an unreasonable restriction is the cost issue. If ammunition is used in the commission of a crime, I would like to make it easier for the police to trace that ammo and potentially lead to the perp.