There's no way this could go wrong

To be fair, the thing about guns probably made a lot more sense back then. And freedom of speech is great, until you start dealing with state secrets and national security.

They can say whatever they want criticizing the government without retribution from the government is what it means. It was never protecting anyone from openly saying anything they wanted.
You can say you're going to murder your neighbor and be arrested legally and charged legally for it if they find reasonable means you were going to try it.
You can slander/libel someone and legally get sued in civil court as well.
- You can say you’re going to murder your neighbor
  You're going to murder your neighbor!
Seems like guns make a lot of sense right now too.
- The shift in public perception on weapon ownership when they see actual tyrany in america is very interesting. Ive been 100% pro gun and have gotten so much backlash from family and friends for being so. I dont even own a gun and to me it has been obvious that the government and media were using mass shootings (not actually commiting them as far as we know) to disarm the people.
  There are and have always been such a large number of safe, moral, and sane gun owners in this country. Normal people who target practice, hunt, shoot competatively, design guns, modify them, defend their homes, study weapon history, or even just put them on display. It baffles me that anyone could be so against normal hard working americans doing no harm whatsoever.
  Not a single person I spoke with was ever against owning a car when I brought it up. I was always given the same "its not the same thing". The common denominators in vehicular violence and gun violence are mental health, education, and financial status. I dont want to compare numbers on how many people are killed in either situation because it does not matter. Human lives are lost everyday needlessly to both of these. But only guns get talked about.
  Curious to know if you or anyone else have recently become pro gun, or have you always felt this way?
- I'm fine with an armed population, as long as people that might harm themselves or do mass shootings cant get weapons.
until you start dealing with state secrets and national security.
So you think whistleblowers exposing the crimes of the state should be locked up...
Got it.
- Did I say that? reread that, at no point do I say that whistleblowers should be locked up. What I meant is that it becomes much more complex in that context
If you utter the words “freedom of speech is great, until…,” you are 100% a fascist.
Y’all can keep downvoting. Says a lot about you and your flexible morality.
- Freedom of speech is great until you yell fire in a crowded theater
- Let's freedom of speech nuclear codes to terrorist organizations. Why not? Go away, disingenuous prick.
- yeah I don't think people who have classified info should be allowed to give that to the enemy.
- Freedom of speech is great, until people start drawing swastikas

‘And only white landowners will enjoy these rights.’

Yup. The electoral college was the only thing that mattered. Citizens were never intended to have an actual say in who was elected.

Reminder that "muh 2a" was written over a half a century before the first mass produced revolver and the conical bullet.

Guns were a very different concept and proposition for the founders. The very few weapons of the time that could be fired more than once in quick succession were commissioned individually crafted curiosities.

Also remember that freedom of the press meant physical printing presses where you had to manually move each piece of type by hand, and physically crank the press; anything more modern than that clearly wasn't what they intended, and you shouldn't have it. Like computers; there's no typesetting on a computer, so you need to get rid of them.
Oh, and freedom of religion? That only includes Judeo-Christian religions. Sorry, Wiccans, no religious rights for you.
- To the extent that we should honor their work (as opposed to it being subject for tailoring to our times) could be debated, but for sake of argument I'll go with extrapolating their intent to the modern era.
  For freedom of the press, they wanted the people to be able to communicate. It being even easier doesn't seem to run counter to their goals, nor does it seem to complicate matters in their view.
  For the religion, they did have among their ranks self-proclaimed "heretics", so no, it wasn't strictly about Judeo-Christian religions even from the onset.
  For the right to bear arms, this one hits differently. What was their goal? It says quite plainly that states should be able to field well regulated militias, and so to do that, they need a good chunk of citizens with weapons ready to go. Those pea shooters were nigh useless except for hunting and as part of a larger force. The idea of a whole town of people self-organizing a militia might have been consistent with their goals, but the concept of a single actor able to pop off dozens of accurate lethal shots at a distance in a couple of minutes is a very distinct consideration that is wholly different than those goals and wasn't in the equation at all.
Firearms could be devastating when you had a whole bunch of people to keep up a sustained fighting despite most of the people at a given time being busy reloading (and the firearms pretty much ditched if the opponent closed on you anyway). Also the range and accuracy were crap, which was still dangerous enough when you had a volley of a bunch at once fired vaguely toward a bunch of opponents.
In terms of being afraid of what a single person could in isolation do to people, the worst they would have ever faced were blades.

Substitute teacher vibes

And I'll defend to the death their right to bear arms, err. Say it.

The 2a makes more sense in the last few months