people to go to volatile situations, armed in a threatening way, which does (purposely) intimidate people. (I'm assuming they aren't carrying the weapon with the intent to kill, leaving intimidation as the only other reason I know of to carry the weapon). Then, when scared people feel threatened (does this rise to the level of self defense?) and react, you can shoot them in "self defense". And then the dead have no chance to voice their motives in a courtroom - there is literally incentive for the gun bearer to kill someone in that situation.

Just as yelling fire in a crowded theater slightly interferes with freedom of speech, I think it is a good interpretation. Any court interpretation that my 1st paragraph is an acceptable norm in our society is a huge loss for our country, IMO.