[Usagi_yo]

The right to keep. — To possess.
The right to bear. — The right to wield.

Two distinct meanings in the same amendment that totally compliment each other and give force and weight of meaning totally unto itself.

[PapaBear3625]

In 1856, the Supreme Court issued the famous "Dred Scott v Sanford" decision, where they held that blacks could not be considered citizens. But the interesting part is WHY they thought it absurd that a black could be considered a citizen:

For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

So, back then, it was considered a right of citizenship that a citizen was able to be armed, and moreover be armed as he went about his affairs in public.