All individual rights are weighed against collective rights. Can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater is the classic example. The collective right of public safety outweighs the individual right to say whatever one wants.
Driving a vehicle requires training, insurance, and licensing and a person can be prevented from doing it if they display a pattern of behavior that can endanger public safety (driving while intoxicated, for instance).
There is a very long history of restrictions to gun ownership (e.g. background checks) which most people seem to think are perfectly reasonable. There is also a very long history of restricting ownership of certain classes of weapons (e.g automatic weapons) which most people also seem to feel are reasonable. There isn't anyone in government proposing anything which hasn't been done before, so I see no reason to accuse the government of such an infringement.
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” -Dwight D. Eisenhower
The point of the 2nd Amendment was to maintain a power balance between a civilian militia and a standing army. There are two sides to that equation and unfortunately the standing army side has grown into (by far) the most powerful and capable standing army to ever exist. Of course the pro-gun types don't seem to mind this. Why? Well because the companies selling guns and tanks want to keep making money and have convinced people that they need a rifle so that if need be, they and their buddies, can go out and fight a tank platoon. It is a classic example of selling weapons to both sides of the fight. of course the fight is completely imaginary, but that doesn't really stop people these days.