[KrisKrinkle]

“No we do not.”

Then why did you attempt it by applying the words “own, possess, and control” to “right to keep” and the words “carry anywhere anytime” to the word “bear”?

What is the scope, the extent of the right to keep and bear arms?

As to “no law may prevent”, would a law prohibiting an adult giving a loaded firearm to a 3 year old be an infringement? Or would that be within the scope of the right of the people to keep and bear arms because the 3 year old is one of “the people”?

What about someone who carries in hand, with finger in the trigger guard, a loaded, cocked single action revolver with a hair trigger while in a crowd? Is such activity always included in the right to keep and bear arms? Would a law prohibiting such activity absent immediate need be an infringement?

[WMarshal]

Read the Federalist Papers. The words and legal phrases used in the Constitution and the Bill of Rightd were clearly understood by the legal profession of the time and by the citizenry of the Colonies. The fact that you have questions about the clear legal language of the Constitution is a symptom of the left's abuse of our language. Just as the leftists have stretched and morphed the meaning of the word "gender" beyond all Recognition in a few short years so too have they done so with the clear meanings of the words and phrases used in the Constitution. The founding fathers were highly educated people and the majority of them were in the legal profession, they planned what what they wrote and were exacting in the meaning.

Again, read the Federalist Papers and also reference a dictionary in use during the Revolutionary War.