What I take from your post is that you have no thoughtful answers for my questions, so you’re going to go off on tangents, make false attributions to me, try to get me to defend a case I didn’t make, and in general obfuscate, undoubtedly so you can play “William Tell wins”.
As they say: “No Thanks.”
I think you were asking me to outline the limits of the right to keep and bear arms.
My answer is that absolute ANYTHING having to do with self-defense, protecting our communities, and stopping tyranny is included. It is not properly my burden to decide where the limits of my unalienable rights are. It is the burden of the government to convince me that they are COMPELLED to involve themselves in ANY WAY.
If there is another question you expected me to address, perhaps I overlooked it in favor of answering what I thought was most important.
Not after having been convicted by a jury of his peers of a serious crime, since the government is compelled to disarm him in order to carry out its justified incarceration and punishment.
KrisKrinkle said: "Does someone on another's property have the right to keep and bear arms against the wishes of the property owner?"
Yes. The property owner is obligated to inform trespassers that they are not welcome and is justified in using only that force which is necessary to eject them. Absent any resistance on the other person's part, there would be no right to disarm them."
KrisKrinkle said: "Is a five year old one of the people with the right to keep and bear arms?"
My four-year-olds were armed by me as part of the training they needed to appreciate the responsibility of using firearms. The government has no authority to interfere with what they were doing without my permission. To the extent that the exercise of any rights by minors are subject to control by their parents, yes they have such rights.