>>>Jake,
>>>
>>>>Not a day goes by without one of these stories.
>>>>http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2012/dec/06/concealed-carry-helps-appleton-man-during-road-rage-incident/
>>>
>>>what I don't get is why concealed is emphasized in that article.
>>>My guess is that open carry would have stopped the situation just as well.
>>>
>>>I also realize that a random factor of cconcealed carry might put a damper on situations
>>>just as much as having less accurate weapons in the west in the heydays of gunslinging.
>>>
>>>Asking for personal take:
>>>a) Do you think the right to carry is more important (perhaps with stipulations of open carry)
>>>or does it have to be "hands off" for most gov rules, allowing concealed carry ?
>>>
>>>b) legal issues aside, what would you personally prefer to see in the states ?
>>>
>>>regards
>>>
>>>thomas
>>
>>Frankly, what I think on the specifics is irrelevant. What's important is the right itself. Weakening and watering-down one part of the Constitution weakens the whole of the Constitution. For the same reason that I disagree with "reasonable" restrictions on the 1st amendment, I disagree with them on all amendments. There is a way established to alter the Constitution, it has been done before and can be again.
>
>The 2nd amendment right is not what you assert it is. If you actually read and understand the damned thing you will see that the intention was to assure a citizen militia. Guns were kept in armories until the citizen militia needed to be called up against an invading force. We have had a standing army since 1850. It didn't say anything at all about everyone going around armed all the time.
>

I have already thouroughly disputed your assertion regarding the 2nd amendment. You're understanding of the word "militia" is incorrect as a simple reading of the argument leading up to ratification will make clear. I have already posted a couple of informative links including the Supreme Court's 200+ page opinion which includes the legal history. Others here who I know you respect have also pointed out how incorrect you are on the topic. Repeatedly using "facts" from a New Yorker piece to attempt to rewrite the history to undermine the US Constitution is not a worthy response to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

>I am through arguing this with you. It's pointless. You are as dug in as the NRA itself.

That is not an insult. You're damned right I'm dug in on this and every aspect of the Constitution I feel is threatened. It's literally our last defense against the oppression which comes with increasing government power and it's being attacked on all sides. I only wish we had organizations as powerful and effective as the NRA for all our rights. Perhaps then we'd still have private property rights.