Part of the problem with defining the 2nd amendment as a defense against tyranny, like Kirk did, is that none of us have any control over how one crazy individual defines tyranny. I don’t fear what that hypothetical crazy individual can do with their 1st amendment rights, but I do fear what they can do with their 2nd amendment rights.

> I don’t fear what that hypothetical crazy individual can do with their 1st amendment rights

Plenty of people use free speech to do bad things. Look at Trump using his rhetoric to get into power. Or outside the US you can see all sorts of crazy leaders gaining power.

Sorry, I’m not going to follow you down this path. Violence is more dangerous than words. It’s one of the first lessons we all learn as kids, sticks and stones…

I'm not saying that words are more dangerous. I'm saying that allowing certain speech can lead to violence yet many of us would still like to protect free speech.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. Inciting violence is not protected speech.

I'm talking about indirect calls to violence that are protected. Trump's rhetoric, despite an explicit statement to not break the law, led to January 6th.

What does the first amendment have to do with hiring a hit man?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. People support encryption saying they have the right to private communication and algorithms are protected under the first amendment. People use encrypted communication to do unsavory things like hiring hitmen, viewing child porn, etc.

Neither of those things are considered protected speech, and you can be imprisoned for conspiracy to commit kidnapping/murder even if neither actually occur.

And murder is against the law and not a proper use of the 2nd amendment. My point is that people can abuse their rights to do bad things. We don't use people doing bad things with their speech to remove the 1st amendment.