That's a statement I can support. (While I don't believe so, note that in the minds of some, a regulation that requires "(1) 'the handgun is stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock that has been approved by the California Department of Justice,' or (2) '[t]he handgun is carried on the person of an individual over the age of 18'" might meet the "related to direct harm to others" criteria because it would be more easily accessable to those who would harm others.)
My concern is the regular, reflexive, "Shall not be infringed" response, without obvious thought to what it is that is being infringed other than the undefined string of words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms."
I believe we need to provide more thought on the meaning of those words in order to advance our argument in defense of the right. I know we can't convince the hardcore opposition, but I think there are those who are not among the hardcore opposition who might be convinced. Saying "Shall not be infringed" seems kind of like saying "It's not fair" when no rationale is given as to why it's an infringement or why it's not fair. It doesn't go anywhere except with people who already agree.
And your right to position the tip of your nose ends where I'm swinging my arm.