How would pro-gun people here defend this?

[KingsGambit]

Because the Second Amendment, according to the founding fathers, was necessary to keep government under restraint. Call it paranoia, but that's what they argued, period. History also shows numerous times that the most tyrannical governments of the world rose to power after they seized civilian guns or managed to curtail the proliferation of guns. So the circumstances are slightly different between the two Amendments.

The First Amendment was perceived out of similar concerns over abuses of government (as was the Third).

[Teallaura]

4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th as well...

[seanD]

The First Amendment was perceived out of similar concerns over abuses of government (as was the Third).

But government isn't as threatened by free speech as they are armed citizens, because the former can be suppressed much easier than the latter, hence, the reason the circumstances are different.

[KingsGambit]

But government isn't as threatened by free speech as they are armed citizens, because the former can be suppressed much easier than the latter, hence, the reason the circumstances are different.

Either way, this doesn't really address the substance of what I'm getting at.

[seanD]

Either way, this doesn't really address the substance of what I'm getting at.

I don't see why it doesn't. You seemed baffled why some don't treat the 2nd Amendment as lenient as they do the 1st. And I was explaining that there is more at stake when the 2nd is modified or compromised than the 1st. We're beginning to see dangerous signs of a slippery slope with the 1st being discussed more and more (with the whole "hate speech" issue being thrown around recently) which I believe is because we opened the door to that initially.