Weapons and munitions are becoming too costly to use. However, the rising costs of these implements are a factor of the economy and the simple principles of supply and demand. There is no question that the current presidential race had such an effect. Now that Hillary is done we can expect to see the run on guns and munitions wane, bringing equilibrium back to the guns and munitions market.
In the constitution, the 2nd amendment states that everyone has the right to bear arms. I think that when something is a right, it should not be extremely hard are costly to obtain. I do not think that they should pass guns out for free, but I do think that the costs should go down.
For centuries, weapons of war and instruments of survival were one in the same - the same rifle that provided the family meat in the winter could also be used to defend against attacks. However, now that society does not have to provide much of its meat through hunting, the primary purpose of weapons is either sport or to harm others. Hunting is, put bluntly, not a right. As for self-protection, there is something weighty about the realization that you could be taking another's life, and that should be reflected in the price of the implement to do so.
The majority of governments across the world put a significant proportion of their national budget into prepping the military which means that the use of weapons is actually dealt with fairly cost-effectively, even if the weapons themselves are becoming more lethal and complicated which makes them more expensive and difficult to develop properly.