>>>>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 am through arguing this with you. It's pointless. You are as dug in as the NRA itself.
>'
>I did read the article to which you referred I think if you'll read it again more carefully you will see it never says as you asserted that citizens were not allowed to have guns and did not say anything to support your implication that the weapons were *only* kept in the armories. We were an agricultural society and any farm family that could afford two owned at very least a rifle. As the article correctly states, there were regulations about carrying guns in town, particularly in the west, but those regulations were necessary precisely because everyone riding into to town was in fact armed.
>
>This is not part of a debate about the current wisdom of gun regulation, one way or another. You are certainly entitled to argue for that. But it weakens your argument to support it with bad history ( which one can get away with usually as people are remarkably ignorant of the subject.) And if you are going to do that , don't link to an article as source material when the article itself, thank god, is more accurately than your understanding of it <bg>
>
>And I really really wanted to see Brady pull it off. ( and have to say that the Redskins have a real find in Cousins and the Browns very much deserved to lose to him as he played a great game. )
>
>Oh, I should also mention I like the NRA about as much as you do as I think they represent lobbying weasels who once may have been advocates for a cause that need advocates but are now right up there with the Teachers and Public Employees unions, the Trial Lawyers associations and just about every business lobbying group on K street.

I apologize for my misremembrance of parts of the article. I'm pretty sure the part about guns being kept in armories was accurate. But that doesn't mean there weren't other guns.

Re the Redskins, yes, Cousins was a find. And he's the backup! (I read the other day that RG3 jerseys are the best selling jerseys since Brett Favre several years ago). Another good Sunday night game coming up -- 49ers at Seahawks.

Chicago is beside itself over the collapse of the Bears. Lots of people are calling for Lovie Smith's head. And now there is a new drama surrounding Brian Urlacher, of all people. #54 (speaking of best selling jerseys) has been a god in Chicago since practically the day he arrived. On Monday he went on the air and blasted Bears fans for booing the team at home the day before against the Packers. And now the media and fans have been firing back. I never expected to see this.

All right, enough football. I'll tell you, it's tough being Kevin ;-)