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.
Who cares? You go off on these stupid and senseless tangents.
The point was that Judge Ginsburg's opinion of "to carry" is in no way relevant to the phrase "to bear".
But maybe I'm missing something. Tell me the connection between "to carry arms in a locked glove compatment" and "to bear arms into battle".