I’m not trying to be pretentiously intellectual. Nor is my posture one of pusi (such a long word to type, is this the abbreviation?). Here’s where I’m coming from. I disagree that an assassination was an answer, if it was meant as that. And I disagree with it as a catalyst, if that is what it was to be. I would agree that freedom of speech (1A) puts us in shape as a nation, but I don’t agree that this act was evidence of that, as you indicated. The 2A puts us in shape to defend the 1A. I also believe we need an A that guarantees our freedom to transact privately. This to help protect the 1A without using the 2A. With so many citizens that don’t understand the 2A’s long term importance, acts like this killing threaten the 2A unnecessarily and put decent people at odds with each other in the debate that should not be the topic. The killer was short sighted. The killing is not going to have the effect they wanted, unless they just needed revenge. I don’t know how the landscape will shift but it isn’t likely for the better as a result of the death dealt.