The 2nd is outdated.  Our founders were painfully aware that they were fallible humans and so is the constitution. They don't call them amendments because the thing was written in stone ya know.

“Mr. President, I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them...For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better Information, or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”
-Ben Franklin

”As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.”  -James Madison

How many of them, if knew about modern technology, would say "Let's make everyone's lives dependent on their cell phone connection and speed of the police."

We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.

The 2nd however sticks out like a sore thumb invoking a time when a bunch of muskets and a 6lb. cannon actually COULD repel an invading nation or force.  We live in the time of unmanned drones, lasers and perhaps the best trained military in history. A well regulated militia is no guarantee of independence anymore. 

There is a better way to prevent tyranny. Voting and non-violent peaceful protest has actually proven to be effective in modern times.

Why should we have gun control, and why do you want a more violent society?

Job security.

My livelihood relies on a remarkably stupid and violent society.

Oh.  You're a union rep?

  I'm really for more and cheaper guns, just trying to pump up the base mang.

What's a "mang"?

Mang is a cool way to say 'man' I think.  The google says it's from the movie Scarface's Tony Montana.

"ju tink I a communiss, Mang....uh?"

"ju tink I wanna living some frickin cage, mang....uh?"

Are you in college?

We have restrictions on the 1st already and I believe they are sufficient.

The 2nd however sticks out like a sore thumb invoking a time when a bunch of muskets and a 6lb. cannon actually COULD repel an invading nation or force.  We live in the time of unmanned drones, lasers and perhaps the best trained military in history. A well regulated militia is no guarantee of independence anymore. 

There is a better way to prevent tyranny. Voting and non-violent peaceful protest has actually proven to be effective in modern times.

Why do the anti 2nd Amendment types always assume - no make that hope - that standing up to tyranny alway consist of people armed with hunting rifles standing in the open field against a fully armed US military (as if the tyrants could trust them). I guess it never occurs to them that it would be far simpler - and safer - to simply pick off the tyrants. Snipe all the generals. Use homemade bombs to make the lives of the tyrants unbearable.

Link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

The Scotus says,

"Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help."

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.”

Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.

Someone asked for restrictions on  freedom of speech which these are.  May have mixed posters.

1. Muskets and cannons are replaced by laser guides on rifles and
    night scopes and amour piercing ammunition. Those illiterate Taliban
     mostly armed with ak's are doing a fine job against the worlds
    most technologically advanced military.

2. Voting prevents Tryanny? Tell that to all the people who voted for
     Hugo Chavez

you guys are a dime dozen, you come in here with the same line....

"I wanna understand conservative culture" 

then you come on with your intellectual superiority....you need to be honest, you come in here looking to point out how "we" are wrong and "you" are right.

1. The Taliban is doing pretty good against us how exactly?

2. Huh?

3. Profit.

I was kidding about wanting to understand your culture.  I do however appreciate real debate and argument.