Replace "First" with "Second", and your statement is still perfectly valid.
No, it's not the same thing at all. The 2nd specifies that it applies to a well regulated militia, so it doesn't actually apply literally to gun control, the question is if control violates the intent of it. The 1st, on the other hand, has the qualification of "congress shall make no law..." So any law granting authority for NSLs violates the constitution. In same cases the argument is made that something other than congress passing a law violates the intent of the 1st, but in the case of NSLs, the FBI uses various laws passed by congress as it's rationale, therefore any portions of those laws that do grant the FBI authority for NSLs is unconstitutional whether the 1st is taken literally or on its intent. Of course, that just applies to the disclosure portion. The purpose of the NSL is to force a search and/or seizure without a warrant, which is in direct violation of the 4th amendment.
Nowhere in the text of either the 1st or 4th amendments does it specify exceptions for suspected terrorism. This sort of thing is exactly what the Bill of Rights is meant to protect us against.
WRONG!! You're reading it wrong.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The text of the amendment is a comma separated list of things that cannot be infringed. It should be read as: "These things shall not be infringed; A well regulated militia (necessary to the security of the state) and the right of the people to keep and bear arms." That comma between the "well regulated militia" portion of the sentence and the "right of the people" means AND. Also "well regulated militia" does not mean "regulated" as in govt. controlled, it means a trained militia.
Study the founders supporting documentation a little sometime and you may learn something.