Good job overall, particularly given the author's initial perception that it's the "actively stupid," "passively stupid," and "nincompoops" which pose the greatest threat. Firearms injury and death statistics clearly show otherwise.
Although the vast majority of his responses are sound, I would like to point out several key areas where I would have answered differently, as well as the why behind my responses.
"Open carry is the right protected by the Second Amendment and most state analogs. Concealed carry is a state-granted -- and potentially revocable -- privilege."
When our Second Amendment was conceived and signed, and ratified, firearms were no small affair, and aside from placing a long arm or pistol under a blanket, the idea of concealing a firearm was rather far-fetched. The Second Amendment does not specifically protect open carry or concealed carry. It protects exactly what it states: "the right to keep and bear arms," without deference to either mode of conveyance.
Furthermore, although CC permits are granted or denied at the state level in some states, it's often done by county authority. Regardless, following McDonald v. Chicago, a federal court ruled Chicago could not use concealed carry as a means of denying the masses their right to keep and bear arms. Chicago relented. Meanwhile, open carry remains a means of carry denied by six states.
"State constitutions are another story, with some distinguishing the right of open carry from the privilege of concealed carry. Here, for example, is New Mexico's..."
First, that was ratified in 1912, long after the Second Amendment. Second, the question concerned the following: "I am unaware of anything in the Second Amendment ... explicitly endorsing open carry or distinguishing it in any way from concealed carry." The scope of the question is federal, not state. Invoking a state constitution is a non sequitur.
"I should point out that, if there truly are that many aggressive, impulsive, drug-addicted and mentally unstable people wandering the streets, then shouldn't the rest of us be equipped to defend ourselves?"
I agree with this completely, but would like to have seen you answer his question about drug addicts and alcoholics with the simple fact that while both groups are out there and have access to guns, we simply don't see his concerns in the statistics. What we do see is the vast majority of people who aren't comfortable carrying a firearm "on their hips," regardless of reason, simply don't. I personally believe there's some deep-seated instinct or understanding that keeps most people who shouldn't be handling firearms from handling firearms. Not all, mind you, but most.
And since not all such people chose not to, your words with respect to the rest of us being equipped to defend ourselves is very appropriate.
As an aside on the author's approach, it's in line with most reporting, which seeks to create conflict, along with viewership and advertising sales, by portraying even very disproportionate sides to an issue as if they were relatively even. You'll find this evidenced in his "some do, some don't" comment about drug and alcohol abuse. Such misleading portrayals must, of course, ignore the statistics which clearly shows the two sides are not at all evenly matched.
"In your argument you are making several assumptions that I question."
I would question his other assumptions as well, most notably implied in his statements about "arming one and all" and "no price to arming people." I've encountered this misconception about "arming people" so often it must surely be a central tenant of the anti-gun manifesto. We propose no such thing. We propose the right to keep and bear arms, but as a personal option, not any sort of mandate.
Even so, he was begging the question with "Or are you suggesting that arming one and all will result in some sort of ballistic equilibrium, in which a large increase in gun carrying in public will not yield more violence precisely because so many people are armed?" I'm surprised you didn't simply say "Yes, and the facts support it" because they most certainly do (see attached).
I'm only about half-way through, but I'm also late for breakfast, so this will do for now. As I mentioned earlier, I agree with the vast majority of John's responses aside from the few listed above.
