Parity of reasoning?

Compare:

The 2^nd Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms, obviously, that one could carry about physically; it does not grant a right to own canons or tanks. It applies only to weapons available for carrying about at the time. It would not apply to a suitcase nuke.

The 1^st Amendment forbids the congress interfering with freedom of speech or the press, not broadcast journalism and not blogging. It applies only to the press as technologically available at the time.

What the framers would have written into the constitution or the ratifiers would have agreed to, had they seen such changes coming, though interesting questions, are separate questions from what the framers did write and the ratifiers did agree to.

The constitution we have is the one they wrote - as amended thereafter, of course.

Anything else is speculation on a constitution we might have had, had the framers and ratifiers done otherwise than they in fact did.

Too narrow?

Where does it go wrong?

Is this better?

They might have been thinking of muskets but what they said was "arms," and so it's an individual right to keep and bear arms that one could actually bear.

No, they did not and could not have anticipated suitcase nukes, and no doubt had they done so they would have excluded them.

But what they would have said is not the law.

What they said is.

So, time for another amendment or anyway a well-timed, dishonest reading from a sensible judge, if needed, eh?

But the narrow reading of the First Amendment stands.

Well, a narrow reading, though a little broader.

The press by no stretch covers blogging, though it does cover modern, high-speed and high-tech presses.

And speech covers broadcast journalism, anyway.

Seem fair, now?