Dscott - Of course there are restrictions on all rights. Like you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Perhaps making full autos illegal is a restriction that doesn't violate the Constitution. It may be since there is no real outcry against it and afterall the people are the final arbiters of the Constitution. But how does that parse with the fact that no one can take away your rights (if they are truly rights) even if 99% of the people agree that said law is Constitutional?
Can the legislature vote and decide that we no longer have the right to free speech without properly amending the Constitution? Is that Constitutional? How about if 99% of the population agrees with the vote? Is that Constitutional? Would fighting, and even killing, to preserve that right be immoral?
I would say that if a right is unalienable, then no matter who says, or how many say, it is void - it cannot possibly be void as it then would be unalienable. The BOR lists unalienable rights and so, even if amended, I don't think those rights can be lawfully abridged. If that is so, then deadly force to protect those rights is warranted.
By standing for those rights and being prepared to use dealy force to protect them makes one a nutcase, then we really have no rights at all. This was the situation in 1775 when Parliament (read legislature) declared that only they had the power to decide what your rights were.
Essentially, many people here argue that our rights are not really rights at all since a legislature can take them away as long as a judiciary agrees. That is not the basis of our liberty.
Hence, of course, the Second Amendment. The power, indeed the power to kill those in power, ultimatly rests with all the people. To ensure that our unalienable rights are preserved no matter what. If that means that only 5 people fight and die to preserve them - well the rights still exist, but their defenders perished in the cause. Most may think they are nutcases, but at least they died trying.