Final answer:
The Second Amendment, unlike the First, specifically addresses the right to bear arms, affirmed as an individual right in the Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Both amendments protect individual liberties from government interference.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Second Amendment is fundamentally different from the First Amendment in that it specifically addresses the right to keep and bear arms, whereas the First Amendment covers freedoms of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petitioning the government. They are similar in that both protect individual liberties from governmental infringement.
The Second Amendment has been the subject of much debate, particularly in relation to the concept of whether it signifies collective rights or individual rights. A collective rights view suggests the right to bear arms is dependent on militia service, while the individual rights view upholds that this right is personal and not connected to militia duties.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court endorsed the individual rights view, ruling that individuals have the right to possess firearms for legally recognized purposes, such as self-defense in the home. This landmark decision emphasized that while gun control laws can exist, they cannot infringe on an individual's core right to self-defense with guns. Although this decision applied directly to federal territories, subsequent cases, such as McDonald v. Chicago, have further affirmed that the Second Amendment does apply to the states as well.