(February 8, 2017 at 7:00 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Depends on how the perceived right is regulated. And I don't care what you call them. If they are conditional then they are not what I would consider a right.
You seem to not be taking into consideration that rights are not absolute. That is, there are restrictions on fundamental rights and those have always existed. For example, free speech is not unlimited; First Amendment freedoms are subject to different kinds of judicial scrutiny based on the kind of speech, what is said, where it's said, by who, and under what circumstances; it can get pretty complicated. It's the same with guns. The Second Amendment, at this point, guarantees that we can have firearms, but there's a reasonable limit on that (e.g. no flamethrowers or cannons for civilians).
Here in California, we have some odd restrictions on legal firearms, like 10 round clips for semi-autos and these fucking mechanisms that make you have to use a tool to eject a magazine, all in the naive hope that it'll allow a potential maniac to do less damage. That said, it's not unconstitutional because it's not an unreasonable restriction. It doesn't deny my right to own a semi-automatic rifle and it doesn't restrict my right to legally operate it in the proper place. Besides, emptying a thirty round clip as fast as you can pull the trigger is an exercise in poor accuracy anyway, which indicates that a minor annoyance doesn't constitute the denial of a constitutional protection.
