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.
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?
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%7E%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?