Incidentally -- and this is only because you've invited it so heartily -- remember a few days ago when you lost an argument and decided, instead of conceding the point, to lie about what Trump had said? Remember when I supplied Trump's own transcript, proving beyond the possibility of doubt that you were wrong? Remember when your response to this was to disappear? I do, you fucking worm.
This analogy is wrong and illiterate. When the Court says of the Second Amendment that no Constitutional right is unlimited, the issue is the limitability -- in accordance with the purpose -- of the right to bear arms itself (i.e., it has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a right to murder/rob; as Scalia put it after explicitly citing the history of arms regulations, the right to bear arms is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever"). It beggars belief that an attorney of any kind would pretend that the purpose of the Framers in codifying a Constitutional right is irrelevant to that right's application under the law or the Supreme Court's reading of it.
But if that's too complicated for you, we can keep it simple: You claimed that the purpose of speech doesn't matter vis-a-vis the right to speak. It does.