Why? And do you have a constitutional right to a cheap weapon?
No, however it could be viewed as a backhanded way of the government essentially forcing guns out of the hands of the citizenry through a different means which would still violate the spirit of the law.
It'd be akin to this misterman...
Would you support people being able to have free speech, but requiring a permit to do so in places that you don't personally own or in locations that pay for the right to allow speech to occur in their location, due to the publics safety of having to regulate what speech they hear. Naturally, as the governments wants less speech to occur they begin to increase the price needed to get a lisense however suggest you're still able to speak freely on your property and still have an option to buy the ability to do it in public, so its not infringed.
So is it okay in that instance for the government to infringe upon a right if they make it possible to pay to use more of the right and that they say you can only use that right in certain locations?
Would it be constitutional and in the spirit of it in your mind if the government, rather than not issuing taxes on religions, began issuing a 250% property tax on all Mosque's due to concern with their links to terrorism, and continually increase its tax over time. Additionally it puts forth a tax on any utility provider that works with Mosque's. So over time Mosque's become too expensive to even run, thus restricting peoples ability to practice that religion. However apparently there should be nothing wrong with that, because I mean...is there a constitutional right that it should be cheap to run a Mosque or that the freedom of expression must actually be free in terms of the moneys used for it?
Its amazing that people want almost no restriction to be placed on Freedom of Speech (remember the, correct, uproar over "free speech zones"?), Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion, etc...
But the Right to Bare Arms? Hell, restrict the crap out of that one.