Yes, that makes perfect sense

So let me get this straight: the second amendment does not protect the right of a private individual to own a gun because the amendment needs to be narrowly construed within the context of a "well-regulated militia" (ie the National Guard), but freedom of speech includes the right to witness a convicted felon having convulsions when being executed? It's unclear as whether the assertion of violation is the freedom of speech of the executed or the witness, because it seems that they are claiming it is that of the witnesses, and that makes absolutely no sense.

We're going to play with this one in class today, but I have a feeling we're going to have to cite Madison on this one.