"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a series of words whose meaning, scope, extent, is pretty much undefined. Pro 2A folks continually emphasize "shall not be infringed" when they should put more emphasis on exactly what it is that shall not be infringed.
How is your statement relevant to the virtually total ban on law-abiding citizens carrying arms outside the home in New Jersey?
What do you think the people who fired the "shot heard round the world" were thinking when they denied to government the authority to "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms?
Please recall that the militia gathered outside Boston in April of 1775 were fighting their own government and their own regular army. The fighting started with government attempts to confiscate arms.
In the majority opinion for Heller, Justice Scalia thoroughly dissected the words arms, keep, bear, and people. He also discussed the linguistics of the 2nd Amendment text, noting that the prefactory clause A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State does not grammatically limit the operative clause the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I'd say it's crystal clear what it is that shall not be infringed. The problem is that the libtards now require that we also specify where it shall not be infringed.