Freedom of speech does NOT give anyone the right to scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater
Actually the 2nd does allow you to scream "fire" in a crowded theater as long as it doesn't encourage an "immediate lawless action"... The original Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States that created that 'fire' analogy that said speech that created a "clear and present danger" was not protected was overturned in 1969 and is no longer valid even though it's quoted by many still today... In 1969 the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled that for speech not to be protected it had to incite an "imminent lawless action." dangerous speech is in fact protected even if it puts people in harm as long as it doesn't incite lawless action... This is why you now commonly hear law enforcement using the term 'inciting a riot' when they arrest protesters as riots are a lawless action and inciting one is beyond the scope of the 1st...
This is very similar to the 2nd, until you commit an imminent lawless action while exercising your 2nd rights your actions should be protected...
In regards to the 2nd the the Heller decision is pretty clear, and was quietly extended further a few weeks back when the Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Caetano ruled the 2nd not only protect guns, but in fact protects and covers all kinds of bearable arms... So there is a further shake up coming down the road in extending the protections of the 2nd beyond guns as prohibitions on other bearable arms like knives, swords, nunchucks, stun guns, brass knuckles, switchblade are now technically unconstitutional as well as so called 'assault weapon bans' technically being illegal now... Get ready for the ride as lawsuits are going to spill in over the other bans in the coming months...