I never said that. I said "to bear" means something different than "to carry". And if Judge Ginsburg has an opinion on the definition of "to carry" it does not mean that opinion applies to "to bear".
"To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms."
-- Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
You can argue that “carrying arms” does not necessarily imply “bearing arms”. You cannot argue that “bearing arms” does not necessarily imply “carrying arms”. You cannot restrict the right to carry arms without restricting the right to bear arms, since personal arms are invariably carried in the process of being borne.