bdickens
Member
There's a dichotomy here. The RKBA side has cleaved to a "No means No" ideological purity that cannot be supported in law. Which is due to the nature of law, and humans, all that entails.
All Amendments, even the Bill of Rights, have "infringements" (even that pesky, under-tested 3rd).
The Framers would have recognized any number of limitations upon the BOR, in both the general and the specific.
Perhaps, had the word "unduly" been inserted before "infringed" things might have been different. The Framers would have understood infringements like not allowing drunkards or the incompetent free range with weapons, that armories ought be locked up and secured, protected from loss or mischief.
We accept limitations on all sorts of things, and only upon the 2nd do we impose a purity that is not achievable. Now, have the infringements become burdensome, unwieldy, onerous? Many will agree on this point. Not all, as evidenced by the laws and regulations we object to.
Good points.
I think in our context, the word infringe takes on an older definition more along the lines of effectively preventing or denying the exercise of a right.