Some Americans worship the 2nd amendment in the American constitution and specifically idolize the phrase " right to bear arms shall not be infringed" where the founding fathers clarified the " right to bear arms" as being specifically for the purpose of forming militias.
Of course the right to bear arms, like the right to free speech, is not absolute. Most of those who attack any restriction on any individual's "right" to bear arms even if it endangers the many seem to have no trouble understanding that the " right" to free speech does not give anybody the right to yell fire when there is no fire in a crowded theater because the resulting stampede of the crowd could cause unnecessary harm.
What they are doing worshipping at the carved, but false, image of a " slippery slope" of the government taking all rights if one right is restricted carved out of whole cloth by modern fear mongers misinterpreting not only the intention but also the deliberate design of the original framers of the constitution.
Men, not God, wrote the American constitution and those men knew all too well they were not God, and not perfect, and in their humility knew the 2nd amendment they designed, all amendments they designed, were not perfect either.
Witness the prohibition of alcohol by one constitution amendment and its subsequence reinstatement as a right ( with limitations) through lesser legislative actions as an example proving as a practical matter even constitutional amendments can be modified without another constitutional amendment being written.
I have heard ( recently) those who utter the phrase " right to bear arms" as though those words were immutable even though written by founding fathers who never saw themselves as gods but whom they worship anyhow as perfect human beings who issued unchangeable commandments in the constitution never meant to be changed or modified in any way. They argue the "right" to sell alcohol is not a "right" at all like the rights in the bill of rights but is in reality only a "privilege."
Of course when prohibition was enacted selling alcohol was not a " privilege" or a "right" and when it was repealed it became ( to them) a " privilege" but not a " right" again. That semantic argument is the same I've heard recently which argues that denying people on the no - who fly list the " privilege" to board an airline because they are a potential danger to American citizens in the air makes perfect sense but denying them the "right" to buy guns with which they can harm American citizens on the ground is stupid and wrong despite the obvious danger - you know the " slippery slope " mantra you read in the writings of many modern radical right wing and conspiracy authors but no mention of which you will find in the constitution.
The fact that Scalia himself when his court added rights re guns beyond forming militias (which is all the original framers wrote no matter what they intended ) made clear that the additional purposes to bear arms which could not be infringed which had always been understood but which this court had just then enumerated were not absolute seems to have rolled off their backs like water off a duck.
I've never heard anyone anywhere argue that there are no rights to bear arms to form militias - the only right to bear arms specifically mentioned by the founding fathers so often quoted. Since America is now developed and most states have government funded state militias the individual right to form militias would seem mute. But upon reflection all the hundreds of American "militias" running around using (or maybe misusing depending on how you look at it ) the constitution's words that their right to bear arms to form militias should not be "infringed"as an excuse to form armed groups that promote and protect dangerous ideas like white supremacy should give us all pause.