Legally, does abridged mean the same as infringed? An argument for lawyers but common sense tells me they mean essentially the same, the basic right cannot be abridged, limited, infringed, etc., but some restrictions are allowed, e.g. libel, slander, etc. If that is the case what common sense restrictions would apply to the Second Amendment?
What my gut tells me is that a law abiding person has the right to own a firearm; pistol, rifle, shotgun. Like the Right to Vote, certain persons, like felons, give up their rights based upon certain actions. Not very clear with a lot of gray area. For instance, the Right to Vote has an age limitation. Should such a limitation apply to the Second Amendment and still not be an infringement?
Does your tagline refer to the Green Bay Packers?
The Court's ruling will be very interesting. I listened to the oral arguments online (I am an attorney, but not a 2nd Amendment expert), and they spent some time pondering whether "keep and bear" is two things or one, and what the phrase means. No attorney responded, as I would have, that "keep" means retain ownership of, and "bear" means carry. Both are essential to the right, as each one alone is empty and meaningless. If I can own a firearm but never use it, what good is the right? And, if I can use a forearm, but cannot own one, I can't even fathom how that would work.
One thing the justices seemed to agree upon was that the "arms" contemplated by the Second Amendment pertained to muskets and pistols, but not canon or other heavier weapons. Who knows how they will apply it to 21st Century firearms? I am betting this will form the basis for an argument against "automatic weapons" being covered by the right. And you can forget about RPGs, tanks, jet fighters, bombs, nukes, etc.