Frankly, the right to carry has already been settled by the second amendment. Still, some of the statists would rather disarm - its easier to move a crowd of unarmed, defenseless sheep than an angry mob of disgruntled - and armed - subjects who are intent on not being pushed around.
On the other hand, what the heck is wrong with light-rail transit for densely populated areas? You think maybe the interstate system which carries the goods via semi-trucks and is a fundamental component of our economy was paid for out of local taxes? WRONG! Federal tax dollars paid for it. The fundamental infrastructure of our country - interstates, railroads, and airlines - are all funded heavily by federal tax dollars. When you get in your pickup and drive to Wal-mart, you are driving on roads supported by federal dollars. In densely populated areas it makes no sense for everyone to drive. There are cities (like Chicago) where the CTA and Metra carry a million people every day, and that means they aren't on the roads. So what the heck is wrong with compromises?
Nothing is wrong with light rail in populated areas as long as the rest of us don't have to pay for it. The interstate highway system benefits all who travel as well as all who buy products. It also serves the purpose of allowing fast movement of military if necessary (and that was part of the system's intent). It has a national benefit and thus is paid for mostly on the federal level. Local light rail, on the other hand, benefits only the few that live in the area it exists and will actually ride it.
Personally, I'd like to see us all saying "I'll give you some of what you want (carry concealed) in exchange for some of what you want (divert some federal dollars from rural interstates to city light rail systems.)
Although give-and-take is part of politics, constitutionally protected rights should not be traded for someone's tax dollars, particularly when that someone will not likely enjoy the benefits of the bureaucracy that is created.
Which is more constructive than having people screaming "Bushie's a warmongering monkey" at people shouting back "Hitlery Clintonista is the anti-Christ!"
Well, the former is a lie and the latter is true! What can I say? :^)
The right to bear arms does not equal the right to carry concealed arms. Nor do I think that in colonial days that was ever the custom. Rifles and muskets were carried openly. Pistols were generally large and unwieldy and were usually either military weapons used by cavalrymen or officers (emblems of authority) or were used for dueling. Dueling pistols were transported in nice little cases, other pistols were carried in big holsters, often on horses, or inserted into a sash.
Thus the 2nd amendment, while clearly granting us the right to bear arms, does not clearly give us the right to carry concealed arms. Which was the point - I was not addressing the 2nd amendment since like you I don't see any compromise with it.