The next clause goes on to clarify:
"No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
Concerning concealed carry, it has always been my contention that the "but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons" clause was another of stating the obvious, that the state does not have the power to permit -- or not permit -- the carrying of concealed weapons, as that would be assuming powers it did not have. It would be passing a law that would abridge the right of a Citizen to keep and bear arms, concealed or otherwise. An abridgement, which it knew it couldn't do. If the state can grant Citizens the right to carry concealed, it can also take away the right to carry concealed. So it excused itself from having to make the decision by adding that clause.
The final clause concerning municipalities or counties also prevents those political entities from restricting carry, concealed or otherwise. That's the only way I can make sense out of the entire Article II, Section 6.
If there is any obfuscation or confusion with the Article, it must lie at the feet of the writers who may have had a rascist bent and wanted the Article to be subject to interpretation either way, according to what 'incident' presented itself at any given time.
"There are many weapons that are not suitable for the purposes stated in your state constitution. Just be thankful you don't live in Illinois.
I lived in Illinois many years and never had a problem. The laws are written for the lawless. I was not a lawless person, nor am I today.
Who is to judge what kind of weapons are suitable for my purpose? Me and me alone. For self-defense, I will allow myself the necessity to use a weapon superior to any that might be used against me. After all, that's what self-defense is all about. It's not about battling for my life on an equal playing field. It's about surviving in the face of peril and the odds are going to be in my favor.
Do you see the logic and necessity for that?
"So, do these federal statutes violate the second amendment? Who knows?"
So what's your opinion? Is a rose still a rose if called by any other name?
""the people are nuts to allow even the state to dictate the terms of engagement where life and liberties are at stake""
"I disagree. After all, this is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind."
Doubt it very much. Otherwise we would have not objected to the redcoats trying to confiscate our powder. Why would they turn right around after winning the right to keep their powder and put it back under control of another government? Doesn't make sense. The Founders, more than anyone, knew governments of any kind had a built-in tendency to lean towards tyranny in time. That's another reason they made mention of it and took precautions to reserve for the people the right to change government.
"Watch how many states rush to pass their own AWB to fill the gap. You say it's the big bad federal government banning guns via the AWB? You ain't seen nothing yet."
Not looking forward to it.
2)"Who is to judge what kind of weapons are suitable for my purpose? Me and me alone. For self-defense, I will allow myself the necessity to use a weapon superior to any that might be used against me."
I suppose you don't see a conflict between #1 and #2?