that is not entirely true is it? Some rights can legally be suspended during crisis while others aren't. Like free speech isn't abridged just because there is a flood but people can be forcible removed from their house in an emergency. But they can be yelling and screaming the whole time. Felons can have their gun rights taken away but once out of jail they still have free speech. People on parole lose their 4th amendment privacy rights.

I know it is the "ideologues" right and it "seems" correct to say every constitutional amendment should be treated the same, but the rights aren't equal in terms of the effect on the populace, money and time it takes to enforce or maintain the rights aren't the same. Do you really think people should take up arms, or picket or peacefully protest in the millions to defend the constitutional amendment that says congress is not allowed to change congressional salarieuntil the end of the year or term? I wouldn't want my kids to risk their lives to protect the right of congressmen's salaries to be unchanged, while I might risk my life to protect their right to free speech, free press, defend themselves etc. Immediacy of danger and imminent threat have to considered when we talk about what we put our resources toward.

Lastly guns vs pressure cookers... making bombs is illegal. That comparison is only valid if you really want professionally made, quality controlled, tested, tech supported and warrantied bombs to be made available just like guns are.

The reason that pressure cooker bombs aren't as effective as automatic rifles is that the billions of dollars isn't put into making the best pressure cooker bomb and they aren't legal. Guns have research, developement, and the consumer market to push their effectiveness.