Come to think of it, maybe this point should be made:
What is ideal is one thing; what is acceptible, or tolerable, is another. The world is like that: none of us get our way entirely in all things.
As the Declaration says, "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing those forms to which they are accustomed."
As a matter of principle, I believe that a strictly literal, original-intent-based interpretation of the Constitution would be that no regulation of small-arms is lawful, and that requiring permits for concealed (or other) carry is not Constitutional.
But, we don't live in a perfect world, and sometimes you have to make accomodations with your principles in order to survive.
So I have a concealed carry permit, and "suffer the evil while it is sufferable" because shall-issue permits are not overly burdensome and have their uses. I wouldn't live in a discretionary-issue state, because for one thing I shouldn't have to justify reasons for my right to carry, and for another "discretionary-issue" often means "will not be issued, unless you play golf with a Kennedy".
I feel similarly about NICS. I don't think it is Constitutional, but it isn't overly burdensome so I tolerate it as a compromise position. The wait is usually no more than 20 minutes even if you don't have a permit. OTOH I wouldn't want to live in a state that has a 5 day waiting period, because I consider waiting periods useless, burdensome and unreasonable.
So on the one hand there's what I believe in principle, as an ideal; on the other hand, there's what I'm willing to put up with for the sake of getting along in the world and staying out of trouble with the law.