>>>>>>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?
>
>This author did a better job of research and citing his sources.

Fine, I will read it. You know I have never had a problem admitting it when I am wrong.