I'm just using it as an example. It would be illegal if there was not a fire and you create a panic/riot. It just shows that the right to speak freely is not absolute. We could just as easily use the example of religious ceremonies which use illicit drugs as being illegal, generally. Another good example is that you can not make threats against the President, which is also "technically" a free speech violation.
And they are punished, after the fact.
And somehow this is supposed to be a justification for prior restraint
against gun owners? The courts generally take a very dim view of prior restraint; it's my belief that the courts have an inherent conflict of interest in Second Amendment cases, and that's the only reason they allow it.
The entire militia clause is now a moot point. It no longer has anything to do with the RKBA, in the context the battles we are and will be engaged in.
The Supreme Court in the Miller
decision would disagree with you. Arms appropriate for military service are the most 2A protected class. Scalia and Thomas seem to understand that, but it wasn't an issue in the Heller