Constitutioncowboy
The Second Amendment doesn't say individuals have the right to keep and bear anything. It says that government may not infringe upon the right. The right is preexistent to the Constitution, and not granted by it.
As the theory goes. But here we are dealing with the way the constitution works. It does not matter if there is a preexisting right or not, the fact is the constitution merely prevents the govt from doing something.
The amendment need not say all types of arms. "Arms" IS the word that covers all types of arms, including armor. Interpolation only serves to confuse or attempts to alter a specific meaning. The Founding Fathers said "arms" and I think they meant "arms". They didn't say "small," or "except yadda yadda".
Yes they said arms, and they probably meant all arms. However, they wrote freedom of speech, does that mean an individual is free to say everything they want without reproach? No it does not.
The problem is that each part of the constitution is equal, what happens when two parts clash? Also a constitution is not designed to implode on itself. The bearing of arms cannot be for all individuals, because otherwise that would mean people would have their own militias, meaning a threat to the legitimate govt of the USA.
At what point does the security of the constitution, legitimate govt and the people itself get over taken by the keeping of all arms? The logical example here as i have used before is nuclear weapons.
The Militia Act of 1792 is not the Constitution nor any amendment thereof.
No, of course it is not. But then the constitution does not live in a vacuum of history. What happened before and immediatly afterwards have a bearing on how we view the second amendment.
What were the founders thinking when they passed this? Well we can see that they believed that individuals should be in the militia and forced to be in the militia, we can also see this from the debates in congress. They were asked to arm themselves with:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed,
This seems to suggest that the founders believed these weapons to be the mainstay of the militia at the time. But they would also realise that in the future the terminology might change. If they write rifle only, would it be possible for the US govt in 500 years time to ban all weapons because there was no such thing as a rifle. The vagueness in the term "arms" is logical. However i cannot see that it can protect all arms.
The lack of commas between bear and keep says something vis-a-vis the OP's query as well. In the light that the Founding Fathers considered the right to include both keep and bear, it tells me that our Founding Fathers intended us to be both armed and ready. Without "keep" in the right, our arms could be required by law to be stored in armories. Without "keep", we couldn't bear our arms as we see fit without permission to access our arms being kept by government. Without "bear", what good would all the arms that we have be if we couldn't carry them for our protection or as a deterrent to tyranny? No, "keep" and "bear" are inseparable.
Except the fact that three state cnstitutions prior to 1791 had bear arms clauses
without keeping clauses. Also the fact that only bearing arms seems to have been discussed in the debated in congress. That is not to say i disagree. I do believe that both are important and work well together as you have described.
A deeper look at "bear" shows us that it isn't a matter that an arm must be bearable by one person. (The same will hold true to crew served arms.) "Bear" is defined today as : vt to carry; to endure; to support, to sustain; to conduct(oneself); to produce or bring fourth. (Websters Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus(1993))
I'm not sure this is relevant. A fighter jet with nuclear missiles is quite easily bearable by one person. Many modern pieces of artillary are not. Should the modern govt be using this as the basis for any argument? They could claim that a machine gun requires two people, considering some of the arguments they have used in the past, especially with the interstate commerce clause.
In 1755, it was defined as:
In Emerson, and being used by others, they claim that bear means to carry. Ie, that carry and conceal is protected. However there is nothing that backs their claim up, just because it
could mean that, does not mean it does. The fact that bear arms is used as a synonym for carrying out military service, suggests this is what it means. This is how the founders used it.
So, the lack of a comma between "keep" and "bear" in the amendment(keep and bear listed as separate clauses and separate rights) cements the two into the overarching right: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We keep our arms and we bear them in our defense and of our country.
I also believe that from a grammatical point of view that it makes no difference. The English language is not the German language. We can use or not use commas and it will not really make a difference.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
With or without the comma the second part is relevant to the first. There is no way to read this in any other way, regardless of the comma being there or not.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Again, it is the same, the RKBA shall not be infringed. The nearest you can get to a difference is that what shall not be infringed is the whole amendment up to this point, rather than just the RKBA, but then there is nothing to be infringed before this point.