You have noticed a difference in the wording of the protections of these rights and you assert that the difference constitutes a "limitation" in the case of the right to assembly.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the various ways in which this perceived "limitation" is evident.
How would or nation's laws be different if the First Amendment had included "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of peacable assembly"?
What I got out of robertpaulsen's reply was that the right to peaceably assemble only applied to rich property owners as they constituted in his mind "the people". Yet in the history course I took on women's rights from the Republic's inception women assembled for a redress of grievances for all kinds of political causes including suffrage, temperance laws, and greater spousal rights. There is absolutely no case law that I know of where they were denied this basic constitutional right on the grounds they didn't qualify or were not considered as being part of "the people".
You didn't notice that?
"Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the various ways in which this perceived "limitation" is evident."
The real limitation is evident by the wording. Kind like Article I, Section 2 that refers to "the people" electing house members. It doesn't say "persons" or "citizens" does it? Probably because not all persons are allowed to vote. Not even all citizens are allowed to vote, are they?
So, by inserting the phrase "the people", there's a very real limitation, isn't there?
Do words mean things to you, or do you just stick in your own definition to fit your preconceived notion of what you think the Founders really meant?
"How would or nation's laws be different if the First Amendment had included "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of peacable assembly"?
You sure do re-word the Constitution alot. I'm going to stick with commenting on the original wording.