I have a very hard time believing anyone in this discussion is stupid enough to think that these rights exist without restriction.<quoted text>
Beyond the fact that many if not all "rights" within the Constitution might be properly subject to reasonable restrictions depending upon the individual circumstances of the situation being discussed, the other problem people here seem to have is that they cannot grasp the concept that the starting point which defines the actual "right" in question may exclude certain activities simply because they are not included within the boundaries of the right in question to begin with...hence, the right itself is not being restricted at all by the imposition of state regulation...The activity in question simply isn't included in the "right", so any discussion of whether restrictions are "reasonable" for purposes of Constitutional analysis is completely irrelevant, and unnecessary.
Simplest example I can think of...the possession of a nuclear bomb by an individual would not be conduct that would be included within the acts protected under the 2nd Amendment.
These folks who make a blanket statement that the term "shall not be infringed" is directly analogous to "shall not be reasonably restricted" have not one iota of understanding of Constitutional Law.
They try hard...I'll give them that. But they would be better served if they would open their minds a bit and try learning about the law.
It's not a matter of legal knowledge, this is rather common sense.