Name one single person who agrees with you that infringed, infringement, and to infringe are all completely separate words with separate, unrelated meanings. Until then, use "I" not "we". Turtle gets to say "we" because at least one other human being agrees with him.
You obsess and fixate upon the wrong thing. People take different paths to get to the same destination. I arrived at my interpretation of what the Second Amendment means through many many sources, lots of historical research, and over thirty years of teaching both American History and Government. The Websters dictionary definition from that same era was one bit of evidence which helped form my definition. But I do not base my entire view solely upon it.
This happens all the time before the US SUpreme Court where a coalition of justices come to the same conclusion in law but can have widely divergent paths that they trod to get there. They do not have to agree with each others thinking which motivated them to the decision - and in fact can disagree with it and even write their own opinion because they do not agree with the others who may have agreed with the final decision that they shared. This is normal and routine and to be expected.
No individual needs to agree with me about Webster and I do not base my interpretation solely upon it. Never have.
I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment.... please tell me what is factually wrong with it.
The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.
That is is. Pure and simple.
Now tell me what is wrong with that?
Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.
Focus on the forest and not a leaf on one tree.