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.
L
Only because you were arguing the similarity between "carry" and "bear" with your Ginsburg reference.
"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."
That's something you just made up. Ginsburg made no such statement - not even close. Plus, you're wrong.
"If you seek to narrow the definition, you do so at the expense of reason"
Narrow? No, I'm simply defining it. "To bear" is a military term (see my post #1256). "To carry" is not. The second amendment says, "to bear", which is what the Founding Fathers meant to say. If they meant to say something different, like, "to carry" they would have said, "to carry".
Plainly that's all he seeks to do.
"well-regulated"? controlled with an iron fist.
"militia"? composed only of those the state chooses.
"security"? never to include urgent unplanned needs.
"free"? applies to states only, not their subjects.
"right"? only insofar as one's state explicitly allows and rp approves.
"people"? only white male landowners need apply.
"keep"? state arsenal will do nicely.
"bear"? only in uniform as the state directs.
"arms"? flintlocks only are fine.
It's not beneath him. It's his MO.
That he turns a "right of the people" into a "power of agents of the state" shows reason expended.