several contemporary documents all point to the existence of a guy named something like Joshua

IIRC, there’s really only a single mention of a possible link to someone of this name that was crucified at the supposed time, and that single mention happened at least 50 (maybe 100?) years later, and there’s evidence that this passage was added even later.

So I didn’t think it’s true that there are “several contemporary documents” like you claimed…

Did you mean Battle: Los Angeles with Aaron Eckhart?

Do you not answer because you can’t explain?

I think you may have missed the connection to the first amendment.

I assumed you believed in the conspiracy theory “slippery slope”, I was wondering why you think the slope isn’t slippery for the first amendment, but just the second?

Sorry, I said hate speech as an example, but you are correct, hate speech is generally only used as a way to increase sentences of people that commit other hate crimes.

However, there are many instances that speech is limited by the government, and they don’t violate the first amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#%3A~%3Atext%3DCategories_of_speech_that_are%2Claw%2C_true_threats%2C_and_commercial?wprov=sfla1

So, I ask again with the new context:

We currently have limitations on free speech, and yet we still have free speech. And we currently have limitations on the second amendment (you can’t own a nuclear or biological weapon legally).

So how would a couple more limitations completely remove the right to own arms?

Hate speech is currently criminalized, in certain situations. And it hasn’t resulted in the first amendment rights of all citizens being removed.

So why would “well regulat[ing]” purchases of fire arms lead to the removal of 2nd amendment rights?