The explanation is simple. Bullets kill. Speech doesn't, even if you have really, Really, REALLY bad breath!inomaha wrote: ↑Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:52 pmWhy is it the second gets this sort of review and not the other amendments in the bill of rights? I say it's only because people are making a specious claim in an effort to undermine it. Apply any of the same logic to the other amendments and it would be dismissed out of hand.
You're only allowed to exercise your free speech if you get a university degree that includes proper English courses.
You're only allowed the freedom of religion if you've gone to divinity courses.
You don't have to quarter military members if you've proven you're a valid citizen of good standing.
The Bill of Rights are individual rights of the citizens, not to be restricted by the state, the only reason to believe otherwise and to pick away with semantics is because the person wants to take a way the rights of individuals protected by the constitution without going through the impossible task of a constitutional amendment.
They would have never bothered to draft the Bill of Rights except they new people would at some time pervert the constitution and forget that it's purpose was to restrict the state and not the individual. If you view the constitution from that aspect, that if in doubt, the individual is always above the group, everything makes more sense and you begin to see the ulterior motives of the authoritarians. The 2A is not the only under attack and will not be the last.
Religion DOES have restrictions--ancient Jews were summoned to sacrifice animals to their God. They can't do that. Polygamy and Polyandry are outlawed, as is, clearly human sacrifice.
Speech has restrictions and limitations, both civil and criminal.
Even in Heller, Scalia stated that NO rights are absolute and all have limitations. That's established law.