What about the first? Do you think that doesn’t protect speech?
If the 2nd amendment did not exist, you would still have a RKBA. The Supreme Court reiterated this in 1886, in a case that is cited for exactly the OPPOSITE by the corrupt court system in our banana republic.
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. ...' ...It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
Wow. Just wow.
In the first place there are two different concepts at play here. They are "establish" and "protect". The First Amendment does indeed protect your right to speak freely but it doesn't 'establish' it.
It's the same with the Second Amendment. It 'protects' your right to keep and bear arms but it most definetely does not 'establish' or 'grant' anything.
Your rights would exist regardless of whether or not they were written down on some scrap of parchment.
Do a little research will you? "Conservatives" who think that the Constitution 'grants' or 'establishes' our God given rights will be the death of us.
L
Big difference between protecting and establishing.