Hammerhead
Master
You mean having some reasonable restrictions on the amendments? Yes, it's completely logical to have some restrictions. Just like you can't scream "there's a bomb!" on a plane (thus implying some restrictions on the first amendment), there's going to be some restrictions on the right to bear arms. Are there too many? Yes there are, but it's not unreasonable to have some. And when I say some, I mean just some.
My answer to that is extremely simple. Every right is limited to the point that you overstep on another's rights. Up to that point, no restrictions
Yes, you can scream "there's a bomb!" on a plane.
Yes, you can scream "there's a bomb" anywhere. You just have to be willing to deal with the consequences. Just like the argument that people shouldn't be able to buy nuclear/biological/chemical weapons is moot. Buying, owning, keeping, displaying, handling, whatever of any object is not the problem. It is only when the use of such object causes harm, or infringes on another's rights then does it become a problem. However, the problem lies not with the object for it does not display intent. The problem lies with it's wielder and the consequenses should rest squarely on their shoulders. Unfortunately there are some in society that wish to squarely place blame on objects. They falsely believe that if there were no objects, there would not be problems. This makes humans infallible in their eyes. If it weren't for the object, the human wouldn't have reacted and been a flawed human.
We do not blame the car for the drunk driver.
Since the beginning of time -rocks, pointy sticks, ropes, sharpened metal, and for several hundred years firearms- man has been the problem. It's just easier to place blame on an object because it can't defend itself.
Cain was blamed and punished for Abel's death, not the rock.