Reply #14: OK, it is a genuine enquiry

[intaglio]

TRTBA is in the Constitution but the Constitution is silent as to how those arms are to be carried. Obviously in this forum I would not argue that weapons should be carried on securely locked containers - I repeat, I am not arguing that and do not intend to do so. That leaves 2 other methods for those who wish to carry them to do so Open or Concealed carry.

Now there is no doubt that the term "well ordered militia" is a part of the wording of the amendment but it plays no part in the current argument except for where anti-gun lobby says only those who are part of state militia should carry guns - and again I make clear that for the purposes of this post I do not wish to so argue for such an interpretation. With this in mind I am arguing that the term "Militia" should be taken in its broadest possible sense ie that Americans are, in fact, all potential members of a militia, able to defend themselves their state and their country but not subject to military until and unless that militia is formalised due to a military or internal threat against the USA.

Because all citizens are potentially part of the defense of the US they may bear arms - but why should a person conceal their weapons? What is the purpose of concealment?

Perhaps, as I seem to recall Heinlein suggesting, all weapons should be carried openly and, I suggest, that only those not entitled to be armed or wishing to deceive (either criminal or law enforcement), would then conceal. Those people not wishing to carry weapons could still be unarmed.

Pros? cons? I really am seeking views.