Since the Supreme court has allowed a reasonable limit on Free speech by dening the right of people to scream fire in a crowded theatre and that supreme court has extended that to Placards, signs and other forms of speech and murder whacko’s have stated that they bring weapons to public events as a form of speech then could not the ability to terrorize people with weap[ons be limited under the same rule?
I know that if I am in a public arena and I see a whacko ( and who else would bring a tool of murder to a public event other then police) flashing their ability to murder people on a whim I feel threatened.
If I had children the logical path would be to leave the threatened area. Just as i would leave an area where people were carrying containers of acid, or waving machetes or other dangerous implements. Not to do so would be irresponsible.
So if the presense of a weapon is a matter of speech ( which it is claimed to be ) why should the 2nd amendment not have the same logical restrictions then the First?
After all speech is a greater freedom then the ability to commit mass slaughter.