This is just silly.
There is not a requirement for a militia. The Second amendment states: 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.
Your argument that it is somehow tied to use in a militia lost in the Supreme Court and was clearly always wrong. If you could only have guns in the militia, it would state: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in the militia shall not be infringed. The first clause merely sets forth one reason for the second clause. The first clause does not limit the second clause.
Arms clearly includes guns and it is silly to make an argument that it doesn't. Quite frankly the framers likely intended the people to be able to own any weapons the government could own because they did not trust the government or standing armies. Today that is probably not such a good idea and I can certainly live with the current law. The Supreme Court actually found a graceful way to deal with this particular problem but I am not sure I buy it.
To suggest you cannot carry is as absurd as suggesting arms does not include a gun. The language is keep and bear. Keep means to possess. Bear means to carry on one's person and to have and posses. To argue that carrying guns is not protected by the Second Amendment as drafted is absurd. Why not just amend the Second Amendment?
The Supreme Court has decided it means rifles and hand guns. I personally think it meant cannons and anything else the military had because it is designed in part (but not in total) to allow the people to form a militia that can over throw or support a government. With that said, I don't really want people to have surface to air missiles that can shoot down passenger planes.
There is absolutely nothing extreme about my position. I am applying the plane meaning of the words used. You are grasping at straws trying to find an interpretation that supports your view. The plain meaning of the word arm (in this context) is a weapon. A gun is weapon. Had they intended to exlcude certain weapons, like guns, they would have said except for guns. They you would have a right to keep and bear knives, clubs and other weapons that are not guns. However, that is not what was done.
Assembly really isn't regulated. A government may require a permit but that is about it. They generally may not deny the permit. People are required to have a permit to carry a gun in most states. So both are regulated.
Speech is not regulated in any meaningful way and virtually every attempt to regulate speech fails. Time place and manner restrictions are allowed on certain commercial speech but most of the existing laws would likely lose if actually challenged and taken all the way to Supreme Court. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't use free speech to justify fraud or other lying (like defamation). But for the most part, the government cannot tell us what to say or stop us from saying things.
