> “...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...” is an inadequately defined series of words. <
I think that part of the 2A is rather clear. And I find it significant that the Founders put in “and bear arms”. Those arms were meant to be in every citizen’s hands, and not stored away in some armory somewhere.
For me anyway, the inadequately defined thing in the 2A is “well-regulated”. I take that to mean that the individual states can put reasonable limitations on the 2A, just as reasonable limitations can be put on the 1A (you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, for example).
But then the fight starts over what a “reasonable” 2A limitation would be. I’d say it would be no bazookas, and things like that. But an ultra-liberal would say make illegal anything that uses gunpowder.
You two focus on “well-regulated”, which is in a different clause and might explain the necessity of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” but does not define those words as far as I can see.
I would focus first on “the right” and then on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, the scope and extent of this particular right. Most if not all second amendment supporters agree that the right “shall not be infringed”. Many, if not most or all, would say that a private property owner has the right to forbid someone to “keep and bear arms” on said owner’s property. Would it be an unconstitutional infringement if a law forbade one to “keep and bear arms” on the property of another against the other’s will? Would it be an infringement if one forbids another to “keep and bear arms” on one’s property? Or in each of those cases, does “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” not extend so far that “shall not be infringed” is an issue?
Samuel Johnson’s dictionaries of the latter 1700’s and Noah Webster’s dictionary of 1828 define a right as a just claim. (”Just claim” could probably use further definition but I’m not going to do that now.) I cite these dictionaries as they are from the time of the Founders and I believe they most likely convey the understanding of the Founders. Using this definition, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” can be read as “the just claim of the people to keep and bear arms” and an owners property rights can be stated as “just claims based on ownership of property.
I’d say, perhaps, all else being equal, if the private owner of an establishment open to the public forbade someone to “keep and bear arms” in that establishment , the property owner would have a right (a just claim based on property ownership) to do so and a law backing up that private owner’s just claim (right) would not be an infringement.
Also I’d say, perhaps, all else being equal, if someone sees their child taken by a kidnapper into the kidnapper’s private home, that someone has a right to “keep and bear arms” while retrieving the child from the private property even if the owner forbids doing so because the owner’s claim is no longer just...he no longer has the right to do so.
Note that “all else” is seldom “equal”.
Along these lines, if someone tries to murder (unjustly kill) someone else, the first someone forfeits the right (just claim) to life because the claim is no longer just. That person is unjustly using his life to deprive someone else of his life.
And perhaps, if someone is traveling down the sidewalk while armed with the expressed intent to murder (unjustly kill) another, that someone does not have a right (just claim) to “keep and bear arms” because that person is going to use said arms for an unjust purpose.
Again, I maintain the first focus should be on “the right” and then on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, what those words mean and the consequences of their meaning.
Please remember: This is a discussion.