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".
You can't bear arms in battle without having carried them there. What do locked glove compartments have to do with it?
You were the one to start arguing the difference between "carry" and "bear".
More germane to the argument would be "carrying a firearm in a holster" or "bearing them in a vehicle". Either are apropos, interchangeable, and accurate.
If you seek to narrow the definition, you do so at the expense of reason. Don't do that... it's annoying and beneath you.