It is also worth remembering (Or if you didn't realize it to begin with, discovering), that
Originally Posted by Dragoon44
What is weak is insisting on a personal absolutist interpretation of one right then switch and maintain that other rights are not to be interpreted in the same absolute manner.
By your own response here you clearly recognize that rights can have restrictions on them that are not enumerated or even hinted at in the wording of the BOR itself.
the original purpose of the first amendment had nothing to do with being able to say whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted. The purpose was to prevent the government and public officials from shielding themselves from criticism, to remove the fear of seditious libel.
In that context, there is no restriction.
It is also worth remembering (Or if you didn't realize it to begin with, discovering) that as implemented by the Founding Fathers the BOR placed Restriction on the Federal Govt not the States. Until the passage of the 14th amendment in 1878 NONE of the BOR was held to apply to the States.
So we either have incorporation or we don't.
The appropriate analogy would be to compare whether or not Ohio can require a license to permit one to freely criticize the government in the same manner it requires one to have a license to have a loaded handgun under the seat in one's car.
Clearly it can't do the former to 1st Amendment rights but you support it's power to do so with 2nd Amendment rights.