But you have the right to waive your rights. I think they can say, you can park, but only under these conditions? I could be wrong and I’d love to know what the answer is.

I mean it’s like when you enter government buildings and they say “no firearms” despite the constitution.

You do have the right to waive (most of) your rights, but a right is something you have to affirmatively exercise. The government can’t waive your rights for you.

Except there are a lot of instances where they do waive your rights, at least as much as agreeing to park. TSA and searches come to mind. Though the language of the second amendment is debatable, there are a lot of "gun free" zones (not to mention how difficult it is to buy a gun in a place like New Jersey). You don't have freedom of speech in many circumstances, such as in the courtroom when a judge bars you from speaking. Prison is another example where basically every right is removed...or school.

Speedy and public trial is regularly a falsehood, particularly in some jurisdictions (NYC for example). That right is removed because it's inconvenient for the government/budget.

Excessive fines too could be debated, particularly given the state of parking and impound fines being the same across all income levels.

There are reasons for each of those, but it does seem that the government can choose to remove any right they want to in specific circumstances.

To be fair, the moment words "safety" or "terrorism" is involved most our current system goes to complete crap. There's plenty of exemptions in written laws for those phrases, not to mention the mentality of judges/juries and lawmakers with those phrases.

EDIT: I better add this, not against laws for safety, but thigns like the Patriot Act or the TSA (and how they fail to actually find contraband) are examples where things have gone to far "in the name of security" and they either provide little additional benefit (TSA) or IMO violate rights (Patriot Act).

Ahem.. second cough amendment cough .

The second amendment includes the word "regulated" for a reason.

The term meant "disciplined" or "skilled" at that time.

The 2A doesn't authorize the militia, that was authorized in Article 1 Section 8, specifically "[The Congress shall have the Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia."

Note that when the Constitution gives the government power it plainly notes as much.

..in reference to the militias, not the arms. Meaning training and proficiency.

Yep, and who gets to set the standards for training and proficiency? And what exactly is a "militia"? Surely it's not random people with firearms. That would not be very well regulated (in any sense), would it?

That reasoning was pretty much explicitly shot down in Heller.

"To promote X, you have right Y" does not mean the existence of right Y is dependent on X.