Daylight gang shooting at Roxbury park

Every single item you mentioned is already required, along with letters of recommendation on company letterhead from 3 different people. So apparently you are uninformed.

I’ll amend a second to that. ;-)

A: If there were no guns, nobody would get shot.

True, but that Pandora’s box has been opened for centuries. It’s a little late to un-invent firearms now.

B: There are guns in America – probably more guns than adult Americans.

True.

C. Reducing the number of people getting shot is an important goal.

Here’s my suggestion for how to accomplish that goal:

Deterrent: If those who would do the shooting know that they are likely to be shot themselves by and armed citizen they may be less likely to engage in that kind of behavior in the first place.

Incident response: If the criminal is intent on mayhem on a grand scale an armed citizen may be able to significantly reduce the carnage by stopping the person who is causing the problem before they can complete their rampage.

D: Placing further restrictions on people who already follow all the gun laws is unlikely to greatly reduce death by gunshot.

Very true. That is in fact my point.

Now that leaves us with a quandary, which is question one:

1. What would reduce deaths by gunshot?

See answers to C. above.

…

Now some questions especially for gun owners:

1. Is “arm” a synonym for “gun?”

No. From Merriam-Webster’s OnLine Dictionary:

Main Entry:
3arm
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
Date: 13th century
1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm

“Arms” as used in the Second Amendment is more inclusive that just firearms.

2. Is “bear” a synonym for “carry?”

Carry, have immediately available in a useable condition and, if necessary, use.

3. Is openly carrying a real sword in a public place protected by the 2nd Amendment?

IMHO, Yes.

4. Do you oppose your state’s regulations on carrying knives, swords, brass knuckles, etc. on 2nd amendment grounds?

Yes.

If a tool can be used by a law abiding citizen for self defense it is unconscionable to deny that citizen the right to poses that tool. Also technology advances and new things are invented all the time. The Founding Fathers recognized that. That is why the Second Amendment does not have a laundry list of specific weapons types that are protected which would exclude any new ones that might be invented in the future.

5. Do you believe the 2nd amendment, with it’s right to keep and bear arms, gives the right to all persons, in all settings, to carry any weapon for any purpose?

5a “all persons”: I would change that to “all law abiding citizens.”

5b “for any purpose”: “Any” is a bit broad and would include such things as robbing banks. I would use a term such as is applied to the Marxistchusets concealed carry permit: “All lawful purposes.” Behaviors such as robbing banks and assaulting people are already illegal and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of the weapon (if any) used in their commission.

6. What are the exceptions? Convicted violent criminals? Insane people? Blind people? Children? Airports? Bazookas? Explosive vests?

“Convicted violent criminals” are not law abiding citizens. See my comments under 5a.

“Insane people” probably shouldn’t either. However, if they are fully recovered they should be able to get off the prohibited list.

“Blind people” are actually able to hunt using adaptive technology and working with a guide who does the sighting for them. You may want to check it out. It’s quite interesting!

“Children” Why not if they are properly supervised and trained? Take away the mystery and they are much less likely to be injured or worse by investigating on their own.

“Airports” How many planes would have been commandeered on September 11 if there had been armed citizens on board?

“Bazookas” See definition of Arms above.

“Explosive vests” are not defensive arms. They are weapons of mass destruction of a purely offensive nature and thus not covered.

7. Do you belong to a well-regulated militia?

Immaterial. The militia clause is a separate but equal clause of the overall amendment. Do you have to be employed by a newspaper to exercise your right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment?

From the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Parker v. The District of Columbia:

“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” – From page 46 of the Court’s summary.

8. Do you consider that participating in a well-regulated militia, if it should become necessary for the common defense, is part of your responsibility as a gun owner?

Law abiding gun owners work for the common defense whether we are part of an organized militia or not. That is what it means to be a citizen.

Three pages? My apologies for being so long-winded in response. But you did ask…