Your point has been made by many. It's a very good, relevant and important point. It's logical.
The irony is that the abuse of the 1st Amendment is causing the problem (confusion) about the 2nd. There is a multitude of documentation that explains the intent of both of these amendments by our founders. They wrote letters and articles about both. The entire Bill of Rights was specifically included in the Constitution so it could be ratified. Specifically, states wanted more specific limits placed on the Fed. They did this by stating what specific rights of the individual could not be infringed and what laws could not be passed that would even “INFRINGE” on those rights. The use of the word “infringe” was brilliant. Technically, any law that put restrictions or added requirement on ANY “Arms” conflicts with the 2A.
Ammo restrictions and laws are in our future. They will go after manufactures not the citizens.
Consequently, we have violated the 1A with campaign McCain Finegold, the Fairness Doctrine, etc.
It is important to remind citizens of the even broader Constitutional debate as often as possible. The original debate concerning a constitution was whether or not a Federal Govt. was even necessary. The next debate was how to keep the Fed. small (limited) so that the people and states would retain the majority of power. The original govt design was intended to create gridlock and make passage of laws very difficult. This was suppose to filter out the trivial stuff and keep them focused on actual important issues (like slavery, treaties, currency, interstate commerce, etc.). The SC was there to remind legislatures that if they wanted changes to the constitution, amendments were necessary.
Along with a multitude of other cases the SC screwed up, Roe V. Wade should have been rejected, not even heard by the SC. They should have rejected the premise of privacy and told legislatures, “There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. But there is something in the constitution about the pursuit of life. As such, this court has nothing to rule on. Until such time as the people of the United States ratify an amendment to the Constitution taking a position on the legality of abortion, this court cannot make a ruling and the states shall retain the right to pass laws as their citizens will determine.
As much as I hate to admit it, Marriage is not defined in the constitution either. The SC should not hear any cases based on laws that states pass concerning the subject. It's a marriage issue, not a freedom issue. Any two people, animals or things can have a ceremony announcing to the world that people or things are “married”. The States should be left to define the relevant recognition or benefits of said establishment. Like it or not, I have to be consistent.
Without the 2nd amendment, all other amendments are meaningless and will fall.