To call the regular use of a tool built and designed for killing people anything other than that, it rings a bit hollow for me.
Its a pretend world to live in to say that firearms were ever developed with anything else other than the explicit purposes of killing humans. There are a few exceptions but they are such edge cases they aren’t worth mentioning, and the tradition of use goes from the first fire arms to basically all fire arms manufactured now. And its fine. Its fine that this is their design goal and purpose, but to be in denial of that is absurd.
So I stand by my point. If a communications and media platform can be held liable for the regular use of its product, then so to can a weapons manufacturer. It doesn’t matter if they put “for entertainment purposes only” in faint white text on the bottom of every Facebook page, in the same way it doesn’t matter if you write “for recreational purposes only” on the box of an AR.
I’m not sure how the current Supreme Court would rule, but any consistent read of the constitution and prior rulings would suggest that there is no 1A case here; if there is, it would likely supersede much of 2A law.