It isn't about reasonable restrictions on rights because...
1. You have no right to violate someone else's rights in the first place.
2. The Constitution and it's first ten amendments are RESTRICTIONS and specific AUTHORIZATIONS for the fed gov. The 2A specifically restricts the fed gov from infringing on the right to keep and bear. The "reasonable restriction" argument is a red herring.
I agree, but what I'm talking about is a public relations war that we need to fight.
The point I'm attempting to make is that we can take the phrases that the anti-gun folks use - e.g. "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense regulations" - and use those phrases against them. We can say that "reasonable" regulations already exist, because we're not allowed to use our guns to murder, rape, rob, etc. We're not allowed to use our guns to create actual victims.
We're not allowed to murder people with guns, or use guns to threaten and coerce others, or use guns to force someone to comply with our demands. Those are all reasonable and justified prohibitions of the use of firearms. Those are the only "reasonable restrictions" that exist. They exist independent of guns, because the same restrictions exist if a criminal uses a knife, or a baseball bat, or any other tool.
Other restrictions - e.g. prohibitions or penalties for carrying a gun without a permission slip - are wrong because there is
no victim involved in what has been deemed a crime by a state. No one is harmed simply by the act of carrying a firearm, possessing a particular weapon, or possessing a particular magazine.
I know the "reasonable restriction" argument is BS. My point is that simply saying "it's BS" is not going to get us far. We have to show why and how it is BS. Saying "second amendment" until we're blue in the face is not a good way to fight the PR battle, and not not a great tactic to use, IMO. In the same way that big-government proponents have taken the word "liberal" and destroyed its original meaning, they have corrupted the meaning of "reasonable" and "common sense." We need to expose why they are wrong.
It's similar to the way that laws against drug prohibition are deemed wrong because someone is simply "consuming a plant" and not harming anyone. Someone with a standard-capacity magazine is simply "possessing a piece of metal and plastic" and not harming anyone.
"But they could harm someone with the high/standard capacity magazine!"
"But they could harm someone if they drive while under the influence!"
And when they actually harm someone - that's when a crime has been committed. Not before.
Showing the world how the arguments used by anti-gun folks are nonsense is part of the PR war. That is my point.