If Kropotkin is right, and I believe he is, there is a limit to freedom in the thin, misunderstood Darwinian (and Hobbesian) sense. It is not a right to wantonly kill your fellow man–no species ever has or would survive like that.
The irony is that we, in the American context, see it as precisely that. No limits to weaponry. Each man should have access to the most powerful device. This secures mutual deterrence and safety.
Until the day one–and by definition, only one–person, with access to the most powerful weapon, or at least one more powerful than those around him, decides to use it, thus ending the lives of those who also had access but chose not to use it preemptively against their neighbors, the fellow members of their species.
The flaw with the second amendment is its premise. Man does not have the right to bear arms. He takes up arms to attack those who are weaker, to oppress and control them. This is not a right any species would accept and survive. Few people have the courage to fight with their bare hands, and rightly so. We are under no obligation to make it easier for them to take another’s life, especially not simply by pulling a trigger, or pushing a button.