I was hoping you would correct that … correct your reference on infringement from “Do not …” in your original post to “Shall not …” as it appears in the 2nd Amendment - because where this Right is concerned and in every legal sense the word “SHALL” imposes an obligation on government.
You are correct about the Amendments being Rights, not laws … and ANY regulation, limitation or control by government on the free, responsible exercise of a Right - especially the 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms - is an infringement (in my opinion). I believe I can establish beyond doubt that lawyers and the courts have usurped control of this particular Right by mischaracterizing it as a Civil Right subject to regulation. That has been accomplished by legal trickery and subterfuge, and by making certain assumptions about key words in the Declaration of Independence that have gone (for the most part) unchallenged, and are used to justify government infringement on our Rights. “In the interests of public safety” is one such frequently used justification.
As I see it, there are some incorrectly accepted systemic references that have led to a perception by governments that they have unlimited ability to regulate and/or limit the Right of individuals to claim for themselves their 2nd Amendment protections. Those intrusions have resulted from ignorance of the foundational philosophy of the Second Amendment on both sides – citizen and government.
On the citizen side, citizens have accepted the false, often fatal premise that the Police are there to provide protection for citizens/individuals (as in the slogan “To Protect and To Serve”). This has been one of several crucial pieces of disinformation, that have allowed government to place limits on the true obligation of citizens to be their own first line of defense against crime.
As proof, the court decision in Warren v District of Columbia, 444 A 2d, 1 (DC Appl., 1981) which upholds many inferior court decisions at the district and state levels spells out that exact point, saying in effect that it is a “fundamental principle of American Law” that no agency of government (federal, state or local government jurisdiction, nor any subdivision thereof) may be held liable for failure to provide government services (police protection, fire protection, water, etc.) to any individual - only to society as a whole. The premise that each individual must be responsible to provide for his/her own personal safety - to be their own “first line of defense against crime with the police providing only an auxiliary general deterrent, is inherent in a free society".
On the government side, government has repeatedly referred to the Second Amendment as a “Civil Right”. Indeed, most state’s Constitutions only recognize Civil Rights of the people, which brings into question the subject and application of Human Rights through the existence of Natural Law as a defining principle of the freedom and liberty we enjoy under our Constitution, as the defining principle laid out by the Declaration of Independence on which the Constitution is based and for which principles American patriots fought, sacrificing their lives and fortunes to secure these blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity.
From the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the governed.” In other words, we have the unalienable Right to control our own lives and destinies (LIFE), to live in a political atmosphere that allows us the freedom to express our Rights (LIBERTY), and to do anything we wish with our lives - to engage in any occupation or pursuit that pleases us (PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) - ALL with one caveat: Because these Rights are actual Acts of God belonging to EVERY member of the Family of Man, one cannot do anything in exercising one’s Rights which would deny or interfere with the ability of any other individual to do the same with THEIR life. Tolerance for the Rights of others is therefore (1) built into this founding philosophy, (2) the exercise of our Rights has a mandatory self-limiting nature and, (3) it makes punishment for violating the Rights of others both possible and necessary to preserve the legitimate exercise of our Rights.
Jefferson’s original second paragraph read, “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; …” John Adams, Dr. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson comprised the Committee on the Declaration of the Continental Congress, and the revised wording (notably changing “inalienable” to “unalienable”) in the previous paragraph above was adopted.
The adjective “unalienable” used to describe the Human Rights of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is a legal term requiring a legal dictionary definition. A Webster’s Dictionary, a Funk and Wagnall or any other standard English dictionary definition will lead you to believe it means the same as “inalienable”. This is incorrect in a legal sense and the Declaration is a LEGAL document. The word UNALIENABLE is defined as “The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold**.** Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE**.**” Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition
Also, “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” - Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523: You cannot surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and cannot under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.
Now contrast that definition with INALIENABLE. “Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights**. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.** You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Your vote for your legislative of congressional representatives may be considered your “Consent”.
Expanded examples can be found in many other Supreme Court decisions, including BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892), VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795), BUTLER v. COM. OF PENNSYLVANIA, 51 U.S. 402 (1850), U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), GREEN v. BIDDLE, 21 U.S. 1 (1821), HERBERT v. LANDO, 441 U.S. 153 (1979), and others.
"Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as “the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;” and therefore it has been justly said, that “absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security–the right of personal liberty–and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Potter’s Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429.
All of this begs some questions about gun control laws which “they” say are designed to promote public safety: Since the “fundamental principle of American Law” is that every individual is responsible to be his/her own “first line of defense against crime” (with the police acting only as an auxiliary general deterrent, constrained by the fact they can’t be everywhere at once), then isn’t Self-Defense not only a Right … but an obligation or a responsibility?
Because it is our responsibility to provide that defense of our lives and other innocent life, shouldn’t we be free to provide the most effective defense possible – within the scope of our personal responsibility to respect the Rights of others?
Because our personal Lives ‘naturally’ go with us anywhere we go, and we are obligated to provide for our own safety, shouldn’t our Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense be treated like our driver’s license – allowing us to cross any state border with the ability to defend our Lives?
And, since it is a truth beyond question (self-evident) that the Human Rights of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” are gifts from the Creator (not from government) given each of us at the moment of our individual creation, it then follows that it is NOT POSSIBLE to have the exclusive Right to control our own lives and destinies without also having the Right to DEFEND our lives in the most effective way possible, “hand-in-glove” as a necessary part of that control.
This clearly makes the Second Amendment a HUMAN RIGHT and is therefore beyond the ability or reach of government to limit or regulate. The significant consequence of this correction would be the bringing into existence of an armed society … which is the *POLITE SOCIETY *envisioned by the founders.
“What part of do not infringe do you not understand?” is the emphasis in the question.
and yet the Foreigners who came here illegally. Are being treated . With more of our constitution. Then we the people of these here United States. And we are paying for their Legal Defense . An our constitution is being used against us Americans. Just my opinion sir . Happy anniversary sir Love Bobby Jean and Debbie ann:feather:
Sir. If we can keep it . Our constitution. Sir . May the Grate Spirit . Bless our . Brave . People so we can keep our Constitution. From . The shadow Government. Amen . 
GOD BLESS .