Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The 1A specifically limits the powers of the Federal Government but does nolikeweise limit the states.
The text of the 2A and most others does not narrowly limit powers but widely limits powers of the state, including the several states and the fedguv.
Why doesn't the 2A read:
'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by Congress.'
I don't know. But the original understanding of the Constitution was that general language (as used in the 2nd Amendment) applied only to the fedgov. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in Barron: "in every inhibition intended to act on state power, words are employed, which directly express that intent". You're simply reading it the wrong way. I'll post it for the last time.
BARRON v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists, that the constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments; as well as against that which might be attempted by their general government. It support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think, that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the general government. Some of them use language applicable only to congress; others are expressed in general terms.(...)
If the original constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this plain and in every inhibition intended to act on state power, words are employed, which directly express that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course, in framing the amendments, before that departure can be assumed. We search in vain for that reason.(...)
Serious fears were extensively entertained, that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those unvaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.
Do you have any theory as to why the above language is in the text? Is it just bloviating surplusage, with no operative effect?