100% in agreement with you. Thank you for your service.
"In the beginning God…
“Despots may plan and armies may march, and the congresses of the nation may seem to think they are adjusting all the affairs of the world, but the mighty men of the earth are only the dust of the chariot wheels of God’s providence.”
The constitution does not guarantee the right, it affirms the right given by God. It ensures that gov cannot take away something that they don’t have to give to us, mainly the right to protect ourselves and our families.
Please don’t rely on “stories” to support your narrative…
I agree with most of your points. The biggest hole in this law is that (as others have related to) The legal spiderweb will ensnare you as soon as you pull out your weapon, justified or not. While I generally would trust a service-member on face value because they have a certain level of training, I can’t say the same for the average civilian. As for the “shall not be infringed” crowd, I don’t see a bit of training in marksmanship, defensive tactics and the legal aspects of carrying a firearm as an infringement.
Until the laws make it so that regular people cannot afford the time and money. Based on the low percentage of people CC in restrictive states, it is quite clear that is an impediment to CC. Look at any state that made their firearm laws more liberal (less restrictive) and see how the numbers increase as restrictions are removed.
While I am always on the lookout for tall tails and embellishments I tend to find stories from my trusted friends to be much more reliable than most of what I see in the news these days.
See, I do see that as an infringement. So to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. I have to find someone in that state, who has the room for me at least 3 classes, I have to have the time to get to those 3 classes, and then I have to have the $$ to pay for all of those classes. Now take into account that it’s a requirement and a free market, however many or few firearms instructors there are that the state says are qualified and you could be talking hundreds of dollars, before you get to exercise a basic right.
So let’s apply that same standard to the 1st amendment. You would have to pay before you could speak in public, pay before you could freely assemble, practice your religion, and pay to be able to seek redress from your elected officials.
How well do you think it goes when you go to show up for church and someone is at the door checking that you have all of your permits to allow you in. Or you call your elected officials and they hang up on you because you don’t have the right licenses. Oh and you can’t watch the TV, you don’t have the right permits.
I am willing to bet you get worked up over those infringements to your 1A rights and all those hoops you had to jump through.
Responcible gun owners are going to get their training anyways.
It’s coming… 
“Responsible” (note the correct spelling) people are not the problem. I worry about new and inexperienced firearms owners who have not taken the time or effort to become responsible! They screw it up for ALL of us. If you do not get training then how are you supposed to know? As a member of USCCA you should know that training is one of the pillars of responsible firearms ownership.
OBTW the term “gun” has a very specific meaning and refers solely to any large-calibre, direct-fire, high-velocity, flat-trajectory artillery piece employing an explosive-filled hollowed metal shell or solid bolt as its primary projectile.
I worry about them, too. But could you not make the same argument for any other right?
Look at all those folks on the internet who are not responsible with their 1st Amendment rights. Should we require training and licensing before people can post online? After all, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Very well said.
Spelling is hereby noted.
Let’s not be hypocrical, though. The biggest problem is not, legal but new and inexperienced gun owners. It’s criminals who treat the world 
as their own personal shooting gallery. As well as politicians, who are trying to disarm or criminalize law abiding citizens.
I agree with what you are saying. But at least it is a start!!
OBTW, you’re welcome and wrong. Merriam Webster Dictionary definition.
gun : [noun] a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory. a portable firearm (such as a rifle or handgun) . a device that throws a projectile.
Plus about another 6 definitions when you take colloquialisms into account.
For the most part I agree with what you said but being a veteran and living in the state of Louisiana I want to make a couple of points. First Louisiana is also a open carry state. Open care is not something I like or do even though I live in the state.
Secondly you are correct all citizens being of sound mind should be afforded the same opportunity to carry concealed if they choose. But I see it a little differently. Yes it was a compromise because the governor at this time refused to sign the constitutional carry law that passed the legislature. But I see as a step in the right direction and believe that when we have a governor who will be more likely to sign a constitutional carry law that it will become law. I believe the state is headed to that direction eventually and this is just a stepping stone. When it comes up again in the legislature and thousands of veterans have been carrying concealed successfully that fact can also be used as an argument to expand to the general populace.
Myself I’ve been carrying concealed for many years in the state of Louisiana and before that Missouri. I have had concealed carry classes and ongoing training in both States. Simply now in Louisiana I can carry concealed without renewing my permit or paying the money to Louisiana for that permit if I choose. Being retired I appreciate that fact.