This was written by Efraim Podoksik, originally in Hebrew and then translated into English very recently.
It was posted on Facebook by Lev Stesin, and I am merely copying it here.
I think it is brilliantly stated.
I will add that:
1) It is important to make a distinction between classical liberalism and the modern political liberalism of the Left. The latter is functionally an offshoot of traditional fascist ideology.
2) The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not exist in a vacuum. Its purpose is to make sure we can protect the three fundamental freedoms Efraim Podoksis discusses here.
What is often missing from the discussions on the freedom of speech is a proper understanding of the essence of this freedom, at least with regard to liberalism in its broad meaning. Although the liberal world view puts freedom at the centre of its social programme, this does not mean that it considers freedom to be an axiom that does not need any rational justification. In fact, the liberalism's devotion to freedom is derived from its devotion to a more fundamental principle - human dignity - and from a certain ontology regarding human nature through which it conceives of human dignity. For liberalism, to be human is first and foremost to enjoy the dignity which inherently belongs to a free man: every injury to the free spontaneity of the soul is an injury to the dignity and image of man.
For this reason, even though liberalism would prefer to expand all kinds of liberty to their maximum, it does not assign to all kinds of liberty an equal degree of importance. When a certain liberty belongs to the core of human soul, its preservation is considered more important, and the degree of its absoluteness raises: for an injury to it is, in fact, an act of humiliation. Whereas other liberties belong to the soul's periphery and an injury to them is less critical in respect of human dignity. From the liberalism's point of view, these liberties are instrumental: they are important simply because of their contribution to progress and good society. Unlike them, liberties, such as the freedom of speech, are fundamental: life without them loses in value and sweetness. These liberties do not advance anything. On the contrary, we live in order to enjoy these liberties every day and every hour, for they are the goal of life.
In my view, there are three liberties which are an integral part of our humanity, and therefore to take them away from us would compromise our humanity: the freedom to believe, the freedom to speak and the freedom to love.
The noble modern world emerged from the story of a gradual recognition by the humankind of the absoluteness of these liberties. In fact, it is by the act of recognizing them that the humankind at last brought the purpose of its existence to realization.
The freedom to believe was the first in the queue (the Reformation); it was followed by the recognition of the freedom to speak (the principal motive behind the Enlightenment movement); and the freedom to love was the last to emerge from the underground (Romanticism). Since then, these are the three pillars of any worthy society.