Take another look in your 1828 Webster's at the words "keep" and "bear arms". That will clear it up for you and anybody else who cares enough to understand the concept.
OK. Of the several definitions of “keep” let’s use:
“1. To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; as, to keep a house or a farm; to keep any thing in the memory, mind or heart.”
“Bear arms” isn’t in there so for “bear”, of the several definitions, let’s use:
“2. To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, "they bear him upon the shoulder;", "the eagle beareth them on her wings."”
And for “arms”, of the several definitions, let’s use:
“1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.”
Then “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is “the just claim of the people to hold; to retain in their power or possession and to carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.”
So, can there be an unjust claim to do all that?
If you say “no arms” on your land” and I bear arms while taking a short cut across your land, is my RKBA claim just or unjust? How about if I’m fleeing from a band or murderous bandits and am forced to flee across your land?
If a man is on the gallows for murder, is his RKBA claim just or unjust?
Would a law forbidding action taken based on an unjust claim to do all that be an infringement?