As you note, "when called upon" is an important provision of the Indian Constitution. None of the people in the posted links had been called upon by any authority.
Secondly, the (i) provision says "to safeguard public property and to abjure violence." Perhaps a review of the word "abjure" would be helpful here:
1a : to renounce upon oath
1b : to reject solemnly
2: to abstain from
None of the people posted in those links have anything to do with what the Constitution of India says, so why bring it up?
Simply this: Unlike what is inferred by the title of this thread, the actions depicted in the OP's linked articles DO NOT represent "How America comes to grips with a mass shooting." They represent how a faction of Americans come to grips with a mass shooting. That is a large difference, as it is inappropriate to post those actions as representative of the intentions of all.
True, absolutely true.
(Just to be clear, I am not talking about Tim here but about parts of urban America today.)
A percentage of Americans, especially people living in the larger cities will not agree with those actions, even though they are perfectly legal.
Unfortunately, I have observed a disturbing tendency of many Americans today to only support the parts of their constitution that they approve of.
All politicians swear an oath to the Constitution of the USA but generally that oath doesn't seem to mean anything to them, especially where the Second Amendment is concerned (and now, increasingly, where the First Amendment is concerned).
While there is some argument about the intent of the framers of the constitution:
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions. The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.
One version was passed by the Congress.
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
One part seems perfectly clear: "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Apparently the Supreme Court now agrees with that too (Heller)
A certain percentage of Americans today don't seem to (or purposely choose not to) understand the meaning of "...shall not be infringed".
I have always thought that those words mean exactly what they say but I guess not to everyone.
“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense” — Winston Churchill, Oct 29, 1941