Fess Wrote:It seems that the writers of the US Constitution liked using flowery yet technically uncompromising terms like "unalienable rights" with the tacit assumption that common sense would be applied. This goes back to the point that if the RKBA is an absolute right, then arms could not be taken away from criminals in prison or the insane. To that, the writers would certainly respond "don't be silly, use your head, man."After contemplating this, I'm forced to conclude that you are correct, and "shall not be infringed" -- like "unalienable rights" -- was also not meant to be taken literally, and never intended to prevent government from placing restrictions (or even prohibitions) on the individual keeping and bearing of arms.
That this is so can be seen in the multitude of gun control laws that existed in the Founders' generation, such as gun registration; restrictions on public carry; prohibitions on concealed carry; ordinances on storage of firearms and gunpowder. Also, 18th Century law regarding self defense was contrary to the modern "stand your ground" concept, instead requiring that a person "retreat to the wall" before using deadly force.
https://theconversation.com/five-types-o...oved-85364
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewco...ontext=flr
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vie...ontext=lcp