>>>>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.
>
>Here you go, at least this one cites references:
>
>http://www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf

Didn't you already reply to this, a little more strongly and with more google links?