What is the meaning of the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"? What is the clear reading of those words?
Some people on this forum say that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" ends at the real property line of an owner if the owner says a person can't keep and bear arms on the owner's real property. So is the meaning of those words, the clear reading of them, that the right ceases at the whim of a real property owner when on that owner's property? Remember, government is not involved at this point. This right is not granted by the Constitution, but acknowledged as existing.
Now let's get government involved:
If the "some people" referred to above are correct, and they get the government to pass a law in support of their position, would that be an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms? Or would it be a recognition that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" only goes so far?
So again: What is the meaning of the words "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"? What is the clear reading of those words?
It is what it is, the Founding Fathers mad it quite clear what it meant in the Federalist Papers.
In terms of property rights vs Snd Amendment rights of another, in my view it's a no brainer. The peopery owner may very well prohibit you from bearing arms on his property, that is his right. You don't have to enter nor do you have a right to enter without his permission.
Now let's get government involved:
Argggggg, nooooo!!! LOL!
Seriously, as you wrote, the 2nd A acknowledges a right, it doesn't give it, so how can it be infringed by Government and still be within the constraints of the Constitution?
In my view, it can't.
People who would say you can only bear arms on your own property are simply incorrect, when viewed by the intent of the founders.
The right to keep and bear arms is straight forward as can be until you get some intellectuals involed who try and muddy it up....for their agenda.