[Monty22]

" You can always make the argument that weapons that were invented after the amendment was written are not protected by it."

Same can be said of forms of media or speech itself.

[JediJones]

The notion of free speech as we know it did not exist at the time the first amendment was written. It got much more liberalized over time. Just like the right to vote and freedom didn't apply to anyone but wealthy male citizens and gradually was extended to others. This is why arguments based on strict constitutionalism are not practical. The language can be interpreted different ways and the times have changed so much. If you can't defend your argument on a practical basis or a common sense basis and can ONLY point to your interpretations of words in an old document then you're in a weak position. Your argument NEEDS to fit the language of the constitution, but without those other things to back up your interpretation, you're not going to convince me or a common sense thinker like O'Reilly.