Some thoughts in response to responses:

Bruce (or that's what they call you) - (1) Without taking a position on whether the taking in Kelo was an abuse, it is true that there were government takings for private use at the time of the 5th Amendment, most notably for turnpikes and canals, which were privately owned.

(2) I'm not sure I'd characterize what Scalia did with the machine gun, etc., restrictions as less than arbitrary as a legal matter. If, as he says elsewhere, the purpose of the right to bear arms is to make sure that the militia can resist the government, well, then, the logical conclusion is that the militia needs to have weapons sufficient to resist, and handguns and rifles won't be sufficient for that purpose. He doesn't explain how to square that conclusion with preventing people from owning M16s.

(3) It's a minor detail, but I'd point out that the line about shouting fire in a crowded theater actually refers to "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic." The point of that line (and in libel law) is that intentional falsehoods cause harm, and that free speech rights don't immunize you from liability for the wrongful harm that you cause to others.

(4) Going backwards a bit, I agree that you need to find ways to apply the Bill of Rights to the present day. I don't think that necessarily decides this case, though, and it certainly creates some problems for the originalists.

Slatesurfer - That's exactly the issue. If the idea is to give the militia the tools it needs to resist tyranny or invasion, handguns and hunting rifles aren't what you need.