Non Seq. Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....). You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church. Silly, right? Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster." Thus, your statement: A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock. Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.