The point is that every right protected by the Constitution permits reasonable regulation to ensure that society as a whole is protected. Don't like the fire argument? Then how about all the licensing requirements for the print and broadcast media. Isn't that an infringement? How about having to get a permit to peacefully assemble? Where are those requirements mentioned in the Constitution?
It is, though by the time the extent of infringements became significant they were already pretty well-entrenched. The proper thing to do would have been to ratify a constitutional amendment specifically creating the FCC and deliniating its powers and duties.
In the early days, however, transmission equipment was sufficiently expensive that the people who could afford it would not have been particularly bothered by the licensing requirements. Consequently, nobody made particular objection to the licensing procedures.
While it is not the role of the courts to demand legislative action, I would think the most proper thing for the Court to do (assuming the right case came before it) would have been to rule that the FCC in its current form was unconstitutional, but stay its ruling for some period of time (say ten years) to allow the formation of a constitutional basis for the FCC.
Unfortunately, for various reasons, the Supreme Court isn't inclined to act in such fashion. They tend instead to regard long-standing constitutional violations that can't be easily reversed as faits accomplis.
The correct approach regarding "reasonable regulation" is to put into law the concept that everyone can do whatever they want to - up until they infringe upon someone else's right to do the same. Thus, you can swing your fist anywhere you'd like at any time you'd like, but you better not do it when someone else (who has a right not to be hit by, or credibly threatened with being hit by, your fist) is close to you (unless it is a case of self-defense). This justifies regulating the radio or TV bandwidth - because you cannot have 2 people or companies (or 5 or 100) using the same frequencies.
I am unaware of licensing done with regard to print media. So far as I'm aware, there can be 1 paper or 50 in a given market, and the government has no say in the matter, nor any control over what each says (until you get to issues of libel, which is an assault upon someone's reputation).
Regarding guns, I don't see how the mere possession by one person of a firearm OF ANY TYPE, or of 2 or 10 or 50 of them, in and of itself deprives any other person or group of any of its rights, and as a result I don't think that it should be regulated. If you want to make sure that the insane or those addicted to mind-altering drugs don't obtain them legally, there's an easy way to do that which doesn't involve governmental restrictions on ownership by normal, law-abiding people: pass a law that explicitly provides that the person or business which sells a firearm to someone who could reasonably be found to have been mentally deficient in these ways (by examination of publicly-available records) is stricly liable for any harm inflicted by such individuals. Believe me, the firearms industry would police itself, and private individuals would seek some type of certification that a buyer was mentally competent - and their personal liability insurance companies would make certain that they did, or they wouldn't cover the liability.
Read the 2nd Amendment - the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not in ANY way qualified. It seems to necessarily imply that if someone is law-abiding enough and sane enough to be walking the streets, then they're qualified to own a firearm. Prior restraint, as your "reasonable regulation" necessarily requires, transforms a right into a deniable privilege - and I don't accept that. Unbearable harsh regulation and outright bans ALWAYS start out as "reasonable regulation" - and your approach calls for the construction of a greased, teflon-coated slope onto which we would all be pushed.