>The regulated part implies a command structure which the National Guard provides.

That's completely wrong. Each of the 1st ten Amendments - The Bill of Rights - enumerates rights of the individual against government power. Its absolutely absurd to argue that the 2nd amendment somehow refers to a government commanded and organized military body and not to the right of citizens to remained armed to prevent the government from getting out of line.

I'm not sure what case you're thinking of, because I didn't explicitly mention one.

Chaplinsky v. NH was in 1942 and had nothing to do with draft dodging.

Since then, the courts have ruled inconsistently on the matter. The only common thread is the courts mostly agree that some restriction on speech is permissible - where that line lays is very much up for debate.

WRT the militia - the government disagrees with your assertion. A random citizen cannot go into the gun store and buy a machine gun, or grenades. Special (and expensive) permitting is required. If you're contention is that these restrictions are unConstitutional, I'm not really sure we should bother debating the point.

They were responding to the mention of "fire in a crowded theater," a reference to Schenck v. United States.

Regulated does not imply a command structure, look up the 18th century definition of that word please. Also, to be clear, the National Guard IS the government. The purpose of the 2nd A was to provide a check against the government— it wasn’t a protection for the states — it was a protection for individuals — the Bill of Rights was a declaration of individual liberties not protections for the states. The tenth amendment is an outlier, but even that was part of a coordinated effort to limit the size, scope and power of government.