It’s a common talking point in the US that the second amendment was written in a time when the most powerful guns were rifles that shot balls which took tens of seconds, at best, to reload. That the authors of the right to bear arms weren’t thinking about automatic handguns and that the amendment can’t apply to today because of modern weaponry.

Maybe that’s the same for the first amendment too: it was written for a different time, with the technology of the time in mind, and so it can’t apply now.

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

I get what you're trying to say, but a) I just don't see a strong case for why the fundamental proposition that it all must be allowed is something we should all hold; b) I don't think, even given/assuming the desirability of allowing all speech, the tension you allude to is resolvable.

If you slow the speed or scale isn't that just censorship?