"My theory holds that CC defenses is a category that can only support one conclusion." And what conclusion is that? You've voiced several different ideas on CC (unconstitutional, tactical disadvantage, somehow dishonest).
"My theory holds that CC defenses is a category that can only support one conclusion."
"And what conclusion is that?"
That they are only applicable to Concealed Carry situations, by definition.
I never said that CC was unconstitutional. Only someone seeking a belligerent position would imply that.
I said that concealment isn't protected by a plain language reading of the constitution, therefore it can be regulated (and is being regulated) by rents seeking parasites in elected office, without recourse to the Supreme Court.
I've clearly explained why I think concealment places the carrier at a tactical disadvantage. It forfeits deterrence, and delays deployment of your defensive reaction.
"Somehow dishonest": No. Less honest and direct than openly carrying, and preferred (historically) by thieves and card cheats.
So... Why don't you stop wasting your valuable time trying to redefine my positions for me, and instead support your position with reason.
Supporting CC with anecdotal statements that only apply to CC situations isn't hauling the freight.