Which is irrelevant. There are people who are willing to assign any interpretation they choose to any part of the Constitution. That doesn't mean the meaning is unclear, it just means there are a lot of sophists with agendas.
Ummmm; not true. MEANING isn't accurate or clear until it is ACCEPTABLE. Which in it's own form means that until there is a "Consensus" where the definition is "Agreed Upon"; there is no MEANING. If a person from the 1920's was frozen and woken up 80 years later, the word "GAY" would NOT MEAN or have reference to "Homosexual Behavior". It would MEAN; Happy, go lucky, gleeful, etc... Not until s/he recognized the consensus that the acceptable definition was now different, would there be MEANING as applied contextually.
So you can believe that you KNOW the MEANING of the 2nd amendment all you want. And it's quite possible that the meaning you have assigned will be the consensus by many others. But until the consensus of all 50 states is the same as yours, the interpretation and therefor MEANING of the 2nd amendment will not be clear. But again; I don't believe that the meaning of the 2nd amendment is the issue. I think there is a consensus on the MEANING of the 2nd amendment. And I believe that your meaning, my meaning, and most of the country's meaning is close to the same. The problem is in the 10th amendment where the state's power allows for interpretation as to the level of power the state has in managing the rights of it's citizens. Most, if not the VAST MAJORITY of citizens believe that all actions; including what you want to call rights; require boundaries, limitations, and limits to the exercising of said rights. This is to ensure that one person's rights don't infringe on another person's rights. E.g. free speech limitations.
Anyway; this is where the problem exists. In my state, the state doesn't deny lawful and responsible people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Will some define an instant background check as an infringement of their 2nd amendment right? Yes, some will. But the consensus of the citizens is that as long as the check is instant; which it is; then the individual's rights are not being infringed upon. And because the consensus of the citizens is that "Infringing" by the government means that the government denies or delays without cause an individual's ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms; and being our state government isn't doing this; then they aren't Infringing on our Rights. We don't require a permit or license to Keep and bear arms. There is no infringement. Now maybe in your state they are infringing. But not in my state.
The problem is that there are a lot of "Areas" in which the 2nd amendment, the 10th amendment, and the court system hasn't been clear on. For instance; (An example. Not saying I agree or disagree); the subject of WHERE a citizen is allowed to "Keep and Bear" arms is debatable. It can be argued that the right to keep and bear arms can mean for personal defense on one's property. Which could lead to an argument that except on private property, there is no right defined to allow open or concealed carry outside of one's personal private property. This is actually a position allowed by some states/cities. Just as there are some that limit the number of rounds a magazine can handle. None of this clear; and is up for debate and interpretation. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says that a citizen is free to have ANY TYPE of weapon; ANY TYPE of caliber or ammunition; or ANY TYPE of accessories. If a state limits hand guns to Non-Magnum calibers; are they Infringing on your right to "Keep and Bear arms"? That depends on the consensus. At the time of the writing, it was a black powder world. basically a single shot world. It can be argued that magazine capacity is an area the state can manage.
You don't have to agree with these positions. I personally don't agree with them. But I do agree that the "MEANING" of the 2nd amendment and the 10th amendment, leaves room for these positions to be argued. And that is what needs to be agreed upon first. Once we do that, we can move on to getting a consensus so that we can carry concealed in ALL 50 states; not have different requirements in different states. and have the same limitations. Then we can have government involvement that is meaningful and effective. But again; there is absolutely NOTHING in the 2nd amendment that mentions the "State's" power to manage the exercise of rights. And because the 10th amendment gives power to the state and people for ALL matters not spelled out in the first 9 amendments of the bill of rights; then you can't say that the MEANING is clear. The "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" might be perfectly clear; but that doesn't mean that the State can't Manage the exercising of that right. As long as you are Allowed to exercise the right, that's all that matters constitutionally. HOW/WHERE is another matter all together.
