"All rights have limits. Even free speech. So your gun rights need to have [preferred limit here]."
OK, let's talk about free speech and the limits on it. What limits are there, actually?
Well, there are "time place manner" restrictions. You can't blast your music at 100db at 2am in a residential neighborhood in most places. OK, those kind of limits are already common regarding firearms - times and places you cannot fire guns, and even times and places you cannot possess guns. So we've already got that limit - and usually a more stringent variation of it.
There's also a "incitement to violence/clear and present danger/fire in a crowded theater" limit. OK, we already have those limits too. Just as I cannot escape all responsibility if I directly, immediately, and objectively threaten someone with my speech, if I directly, immediately, and objectively threaten someone with my gun, I will likely be arrested and charged with brandishing, assault, and/or reckless endangerment. So that limit, too, is already in place.
There's a limit on free speech that is in direct furtherance of an illegal action. So, for instance, I am not protected by my free speech rights if I use my speech to engage in a contract to fix prices on a commodity or tell a hit man to kill someone. Again, we already have the equivalent and more as a limit on guns - almost any crime done with a gun is more harshly punished than the same crime without a gun.
Now let's look at the kind of "reasonable limits" you're suggesting for guns, and see whether those have any similarity to the accepted limits on speech rights.
- Limits on particular guns. Nope. We don't make the mere utterance of certain words illegal just because of their potential for harm. We haven't banned the words "white supremacy" or "klan" or "bomb" or "murder" or "hijack" or any number of other words that do have the potential to be used in terrible crimes. We punish their use when they are used specifically for a crime, but do not otherwise prohibit people from using them in non-criminal ways. And doing otherwise would clearly violate the right of free speech. This is not a "limit" on a right, just an excision of it.
- Registration of guns. Nope. We don't make people pre-register their computers or typewriters, nor do we make them pre-submit their letters to the editor to the local or national authorities. We don't compel people to file all their politically-oriented statements with the government, either. Nothing along these lines would be even remotely permissible. This is not a "limit" that exists on other basic rights, for good reason.
- Limits on who can speak. This is already a "limit" that exists on guns that would never be tolerated as to speech or other basic rights.
So when you say "all rights have limits," what you really seem to mean is that gun rights should be limited in a way that
would never be allowed with other rights.
