It is acceptable for the government to limit the right to bear arms because they can still allow people to have their gun rights while at the same time adjusting the rules for safety reasons. A person doesn't need access to every single gun on the market to be considered as having "the right to keep and bear arms."
The U.S. Government along with state governments cannot disarm the population and must provide guidelines for regulation of weapons. Hence, most gun laws are not a violation of the 2nd amendment. However, just becuase the U.S. Government can regulate arms further is not evidence or reason to presume that such regulation is inobjectionable for other reasons.
The second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, is in the constitution itself and was set in place to help keep foreign armies at bay during the American revolution. While that reason may not be as relevant today, the idea of self defense is. In a world where an armed man or woman can walk into a theater, school, store, or church and begin executing people is a very real fear, the right to bear arms has been proven to, at the very least, deter this sort of action.
We have been granted the right to bear arms by the Constitution. This right was deemed necessary by our Founding Fathers. We have the right to protect our property, our homes, our families, and our lives. This right cannot be limited, repealed, or amended. It is of paramount importance that the rights granted by the Constitution remain untouched and unaltered.
No, it is not acceptable for the government to limit the right to bear arms, because it was something that the founding fathers were very concerned about. The founding fathers wanted the right to bear arms to be unabridged, because they thought that was necessary to fight back against a tyrannical government. They should not limit arms now.