It's funny, because a lot of the arguments in this thread in favor of maximal free speech use the example of past religious suppression and orthodoxy as support, and they act like they are on the side of the bloody Enlightenment, piercing the darkness of ignorant r3ligionz, but if you disagree with the rules set by the constitution on speech or guns[0], they want to cling to that text as it was written in the 18th century religiously, the same way a fundamentalist Muslim doesn't want to alter anything in the religion despite societal changes that have occurred since the 7th century (using this example because I'm Muslim, not because I'm a bigot who wants to pick on Muslims).

[0] Legally, it's debatable whether the 2nd Amd applied to the bearing of arms for personal use, but we can go by the law on the books right now, and I think that the ship has sailed anyways