>That makes sense. But presumably you don't have to permit the guns you don't carry around.

Generally, it's not the gun that's permitted it's you as an individual.

You're telling the government "hey I have a gun and here's all of my personal information".

Even if you only carry one around it's not a huge leap to assume that more may exist and if confiscation were to happen they know you have at least one (and probably more than one) to seize.

Not to mention said information is stored in databases where the information can (and has been) stolen [1] which may lead to you becoming a more valuable target for theft.

I can legally (but not wisely) carry a firearm in the open in my state, but if I don't want everyone to know about it and "conceal" it I have to tell the government and be put in a database that may get leaked.

>And it's a "well regulated militia", not a free for all

There's plenty of debate over that term (and if it's just some antiquated terminology or not), but it is followed by "the right of the people" (not explicitly just some "militia" for what that's worth).

I'm not in favor of it being a true free-for-all and there's plenty of restrictions on who should be able to have guns which are seemingly reasonable (with appropriate due process), but realistically that only affects those who comply with laws.

>I understand people wanting more rights than they are statutorily entitled to.

I want as many rights as possible for the most amount of people. Of course this one is one of the most contentious given the risk of harm (which should be acknowledged in any honest argument), but in my estimation if you consider it a right (which not everyone does clearly) you should defend it because there's no shortage of governments wishing to remove rights from its people.

>So do I, on other rights

Without going too far down the slippery slope, which other rights are you willing to compromise on with the least generous interpretation?

Or would you rather prefer the strongest interpretation that maintains the most personal protections at the risk of a safety over freedom?

2A aside, I think there's a bunch of rights including speech and privacy rights the government would like to bypass for the supposed sake of perceived safety. After all we have to stop the terrorists and protect children, the ends justify the means.

[1] https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/12/how-did-confidenti...