There have already been instances of well armed African-American people openly carrying large guns forming parts of these protests. The effect? The police have known better than to respond with violence.

And yet in Vallejo this week a Latino man was shot for suspicion of having a gun in his pocket (not a crime) which turned out to be a hammer (also not a crime).

Not the same thing in the least. I'm talking about people openly carrying guns as 'scary-looking' as assault rifles. I found the story you referred to. The difference is, the victim (at best, from the perspective of the police' defense attourney) looked to be hiding a concealable gun (not saying he was, or that the incident wasn't an atrocity): the man looked relatively defenseless. The people I'm talking about have the appearance of being able to win that same shootout, and the police can see it.

Genuinely curious: do you have sources showing this?

See my other comment. https://imgur.com/gallery/p3LRF1L

The right to peaceably assemble does not include the right to assemble for the purpose of violence.

The first amendment does not include the word "peaceably."

You are incorrect.

Edit: (Full text of the First Amendment that I could find)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It doesn't need to. Just as it doesn't need to have a provision for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. But such actions will have consequences.

Congress has the authority "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;". Assembling for the purpose of violence is by definition an insurrection. So if the First Amendment said nothing of peaceably assembling, we can assume it is meant so, otherwise the Constitution would say nothing of insurrections.

> It doesn't need to.

Your interpretation is not compelling (as well as not relevant, due to the presence of the term).

When there is a question, entertained by a court and an emduring legal precedent, ipso facto there was a legal question. An assumption about what needs to be enumerated to exist, is the doctrine of strict constructionism.