If Trump thinks negative and critical commentary don’t qualify as free speech because they’re “dangerous” and make him “angry,” he’s reversed the First Amendment, which was designed to protect the right to say bad things about “good” things. It’s easy to imagine that Trump’s complete revision of the First Amendment would define freedom of religion as the right to attend a church of Trump’s choice, that the right to assembly was reserved only for people attending MAGA rallies, and that the freedom of the press belongs to those who praise Trump.

Following Trump’s idea to its logical extremes, what would the Bill of Rights look like if he applied the same judicial oomph to the other original amendments to the Constitution? Rewriting the Second Amendment to Trump’s satisfaction could be done with just a few word changes. Rather than having a right to bear arms, the Trump rewrite would make gun ownership a duty. This isn’t far from Trump’s real-life position. In a June interview, he all but called for universal armament when he said that unarmed civilians were “sitting ducks.”