You are correct, the constitution is quite clear to anyone but these new age Democrats who have a goal of transforming America to one of Socialist Europe. How's those gun free European nations doing with terrorism? Where did those terrorists get the guns?

Democrats believe the Constitution is a living document that can be changed with the culture.

It would not matter if the wording of the Constitution said....."it is every American's right to carry conceiled weapons in public places"

These extremist Socialist Democrats would simply say that those words were meant for a different time and different culture.

There is no wording in the Constitution that will ever be above reproach to this extreme transforming Democrat Party.

People have a right to self defense. Guns make people equal, and the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. However, that doesn't mean any weapon should be available to everyone. I'm ok with laws that limit magazine size or rate of fire, because you still have the capacity to defend yourself, but not to murder 50 people in a few minutes. As for open/concealed carry, it should be up to the states to decide. I would argue that concealed carry shouldn't be allowed and everyone should have to carry their weapons openly. I feel like concealed carry is inherently deceitful.

While not entirely clear, the question posed appears to be whether the right to bear arms is somehow “absolute,” i.e., not subject to any limitations.

A little reflection reveals the answer to be obvious: Of course it is subject to limitations. It could not be otherwise. Indeed, one is hard put to imagine any legal right that is “absolute” and unlimited.

As the Supreme Court recognized in Heller, the Second Amendment did not create or grant a new right, but rather codified a pre-existing right of the people. It is that right that the Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” The question then becomes: What is that right, and what does it encompass? And in particular is it “absolute” or does it come with “built in” limitations?

The Court answered that question at some length, reviewing the history of the right in English and American law. It summarized: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [Citations.] For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. [Citations.] Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [¶] We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” [Citation.] We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [Citations.]”

With respect to semantics and the supposition that the phrase “shall not be infringed” connotes an absolute right, the foregoing discussion reveals that simply to be mistaken. Or perhaps another way to look at would be to accept that “shall not be infringed” is an absolute mandate—and read the Amendment to recognize that the pre-existing right to bear arms, limited as it is, absolutely shall not be infringed, i.e., no limitations beyond those already a part of the right will be tolerated.

OK, the precedent to understand exactly who qualifies in the United States to own a Fire-Arm under the 2nd Amendment. Land owners, Soldier. That’s the list, short isn’t it?

OK, who could own a fire arm or weapon of some kind under the common defense provided by United States Constitution during this same time? Land owners, hunters and trappers, United States citizens, Indians, foreign travelers, soldier.

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. Shall not be infringed.”( written December 15, 1791(Wikipedia)

1776 Only people who owned land.

1787 States Decide who can vote. (www.kqed.org/assets/pdf/education/digitalmedia/us-voting-rights-timeline.pdf)

1790 – (In most cases) States only free white immigrants male property owners could Vote. 6% of the United States population.

1810 - Last of the State religious voting prerequisite eliminated.

1850 - Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated.

1856 – All white men are now allowed to vote in the United States.

1870 – Slave right to vote can vote.

1872 – woman can vote.

1890 – Literacy test for voting.

(www.infoplese.com/timelines/voting.html)

Keep in mind there were no cars or trucks at this time. Horses though did occasionally kill pedestrians. Both cars and trucks are an arm which can be brought to bear on a citizen requiring a common defense. With the number of automobiles on the road today, 255.8 million registered. It is simple much easier to carry a fire-arm then to live in a car or truck.

“Shall not be infringed.” Is a legal disclaimer warning of a violation of law. Fire-arms as an arm brought to bear is personal property, the property must be purchased from and owner at fair value. Law or no law making it illegal to own. There are several reasons why this is so, and it is not just for the benefit of the fire-arm owner.