it's funny how authorities respect the 1st amendment a little more than the 2nd it seems, considering that the 2nd is so much more strictly worded. 1st amendment , or at least the first part of it, just says "congress shall pass no law" abridging free speech rights. 2nd amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," implying a much wider cross-section of the government may not bother you over it.
The founders knew the 2nd Amendment was the last firewall between freedom and tyranny, and without the 2nd the rest are worthless.
Absolutely and some state constitutions made it even more explicit:
Here's one example:
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
Other states's phrasing were closer to the Federal version and some downright ambiguous to the modern ear:
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
State constitutionally mandated submission tot he government. Wonderful. Too bad it is not a lawful decree since the 2nd Amendment is more clear on this and clearly intended citizen power to be in parity with the state.
