I've never liked or thought 2-party consent requirements made sense because it felt like an extremely overly broad restriction on our own potential memories, discrimination based on mental ability, and with negative implication for future prosthetics. Like, why should someone with a photographic memory inherently have a right to have better recollection of their own personal interactions then someone with memory loss problems who wants to use a life log so they can go back over the day later? What about future implants and such? I'd much prefer if the law was more fine grained and focused on the negative edges. Like, perhaps consent would be required for sharing with the general public in cases not of public interest (in the legally defined sense), or that if one wanted to share any snippets the other party could demand the complete recording be shared as well. Or there could be technical requirements, like all future recording hardware must time stamp and cryptographically sign each frame so that any alteration is trivial to detect. Basically go after worries of "cherry picking" specifically. There could be specific protections for highly sensitive conversations like medical, or to address power imbalances (clients/customers/patients vs service providers).
But giving any party to a conversation a total universal veto over anyone else having a personal record by default never felt right and I'm glad I don't live in one of those states. After all, everyone can (and does!) demand NDAs or the like as they wish.
What's the difference?
Actually, sometimes, yes; from both homeowners and occasionally Police, despite their reputation, with sometimes deadly consequences. You are afraid to pull the trigger if you have no idea what the jury will think.
However, there is a difference in that the use of violence to defend yourself is more or less the same in all states, give or take Castle doctrine. Oregon and a few others are unique.
But I would like to add, because your analogy is so strained, violence is not speech.
It can, as can literally any law when you're brushing up into the boundaries of a gray area.
The principal question is:
"Do we want to live in a society where violence is usually allowed?" - Definitely not.
"Do we want to live in a society where recording people without their consent is usually allowed?" - Maybe? Depends on who you ask. Unlike violence, our social mores consider this almost entirely to be a gray area.
Or, your boss, without him suing you for recording a private comment about making the office whiter.