"There's no unlimited right to bear arms"
An op-ed piece in the LA Times, by historian Joseph J. Ellis. As the comments point out, he has an interesting past. (A friend commented that one should be suspicious of historians who cannot honestly report their personal history).
I find it amusing that he says the 2A is not "an absolute right, like the right to vote or the right to a fair trial."
As to voting, it's a right that only adults can exercise, on one day, generally every two years. It must be exercised at designated locations, between designated hours, involving a choice between candidates who have been chosen by a government-designated procedure, which can involve filing petitions with thousands of signatures by a specific deadline.
As far as fair trial... good luck. If your attorney does not make the right motions, at the right time, you lose, even if the evidence did not prove your guilt, or a biased jury was picked, or evidence was gathered in violation of the Bill of Rights.
It's the standard claim that "a right can sometimes be regulated, this is a regulation, so it is okay." But the fact that we cannot send someone threats, or engage in blackmail (threatening, unless paid, to report a crime) or try to incite a riot, does not establish that a law making it a crime to criticize the president or Congress is perfectly constitutional. (At least that has some historical claim, since Congress did just that in the Sedition Act of 1798, I believe. The Federalist Party pushed it through, and the people destroyed the Federalist Party, showing that the popular understanding of the First Amendment was broader than that held by Congress a mere seven years after the Bill of Rights was ratified).