Swearing in public? Speech over the airwaves? Fighting words?
Oh, and since when are our laws limited to regulating behavior that harms others? Is this some new, made-up standard of yours that we're supposed to comply with? Where did you get this standard and why are you using it?
"How does carrying or owning an "assault weapon" or "Saturday night special" meet this test?"
Test? It's considered a reasonable regulation.
"How are they not all protected from regulation by prior restraint?"
Because the legal concept of "prior restraint" doesn't apply to guns? Just a guess.
Have all been regulated based on the concept that they inflict damage or cause imminent threat of damage. I've got no problem with making the brandishing of arms in a belligerent, non-defensive manner illegal.
Oh, and since when are our laws limited to regulating behavior that harms others?
When those laws conflict with Constitutional rights, such as speech, press, being secure in our homes, and bearing and keeping personal arms. That's why it is called the Supreme Law of the Land, because petty laws cannot override its provisions, and the rights cannot be taken without due process on a case by case basis.
It's considered a reasonable regulation.
How can you "reasonably regulate" things you are forbidden to infringe upon, in the absence of damage or credible threat thereof?
Because the legal concept of "prior restraint" doesn't apply to guns?
You mean it hasn't been applied yet, legally. The underlying concept certainly applies. Requiring Governmental permission to exercise the right to publish certain words is no different than requiring Governmental permission to exercise the right to own certain arms, which "shall not be infringed".