Allowing that clarification, does that mean your analagous "right to read" prior indicated means you would, under such phrasing and understanding as indicated by your 2nd Amendment interpretation: support prohibition of individuals owning books, outlawing of personal libraries, licensing or prohibiting carry of single books concealed in backpacks or briefcases or pockets, and outright bans on novels?
As the library teaches people to read, could the gov't prohibit private ownership of foreign-language books involving literacy not taught by the library?
As the library loans out books, could the gov't forbid private ownership of equivalent books? or "better" books? or any books not library-owned?
As the library keeps the larger reference collections, could the gov't forbid private ownership of encyclopedias?
What "right" does an individual have to books in such a scenario, given that the gov't would in your view have the power to totally dictate the extent to which a library card could be used, and the extent to which private ownership of books could then be regulated?
Given your own book-oriented analogy to the 2nd Amendment, and given the hundreds/thousands of posts you've made on the interpretation thereof, it seems you would have no problem with such restrictions. The only "right" to books someone would truly have would be to get a library card - use of which could be restricted to the kiddie section, with no borrowing privileges.
I gets deeper than that. Who would write the books and how would that be regulated?
It gets deeper than that. Who would write the books and how would that be regulated?