It is, but then the definition of "reasonable" gets changed.
The definition of "reasonable" in all things is constantly in change... did you think the second amendment would be any different?
Sometimes people say it’s not reasonable for people to be able to own handguns.
And the courts will tell them they're wrong -- as they have in the past.
They’ll say making a person wait for a week to take possession of a gun they paid for in full is reasonable.
The idea of some sort of waiting period is reasonable -- the argument then becomes how long a period is reasonable.
It's reasonable, after all, to think that a firearm shouldn't be an impulse buy... or that someone who absolutely needs to purchase a gun
now,
today, no, seriously, can't wait, should probably raise a few red flags.
Furthermore, at least some of that time should reasonably be spent performing a background check... one does not reasonably give a scalpel to Jack the Ripper.
They say a gun holding more than 6 rounds would be reasonable to ban.
This one I've never understood the logic for -- if you've got a 15-round magazine, plus one in the chamber, and whatever you're shooting at is still coming at you, either your aim stinks, or your fighting the Terminator.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that such restrictions are not
technically second amendment violation, since the guns are not being banned, only certain parts of them -- the magazines.
They say a person should only be allowed to own a certain number of guns, and that it’s reasonable to not even allow the people to keep those guns in their own home.
I've never seen an example of the former, although I'll take your word for it, and agree that this one is unreasonable... I'm all for registering firearms, but not for limiting them; the authorities shouldn't restrict the number of guns you own, but there's good reason for them to know you have them.
As for the latter -- I've heard of guns not allowed to be kept in the home
unless certain precautions are made -- child-proof lockbox, etc... again, without knowing the specifics, I'll reserve judgement on this one.
When something is “subject to interpretation”, eventually it gets interpreted to mean something that it clearly doesn’t.
Agreed -- often by legislators... which is why we have a judiciary to reign them in. Checks and balances, and all that.