
1. Amazing how a guy from last century couldn't even get to the point that the founders of America did in gun rights, in that you may be able to keep arms but there is no right to bear them and the proponents of communism do not take this right seriously 2. Yes, even slurs are protected free speech when not used as fighting words.
Even beyond that, the government should not be able to punish the use of fighting words directly via the enforcement of a law imo, fighting words should just make you lose the protection of free speech in the context of engaging in a physical altercation over what you have said, as they do already.
I think that a "right to be an asshole" is important, because "being an asshole" is a subjective thing in nature, I may believe someone who you would not call an asshole is one. We can't just give the government the right to decide who is and isn't, then punish them for that speech accordingly.
Once the government starts choosing who’s the “asshole” they also choose who is right or wrong leading to further government control. The entire point of freedom of speech is to allow social standards to dictate what is right or wrong not the law. So yes, this also includes slurs. Something socially most of all people condemn still should not be outlawed because of social retaliation not governmental.
It's also very disingenuous to frame this as an unlimited right to spouting racism without repercussions. The social retaliation can even be justified very widely, like I said use of slurs can on its own merit be a legal justification for a physical confrontation with someone (up to and including those that result in death).