The question isn't about the absoluteness of 'infringed'.
Earlier today I read someone's take on the 1st amendment. This was a well educated and widely cited person of much influence. They, offhandedly, asserted that freedom of speech was a right because it strengthened democracy.
Now I, uneducated and lout that I am, would've shot back with, "Yeah right...that's why non-infringement of that right is lumped along with freedom of religion... because free religion and free speech both strengthen democracy." I would've rolled my eyes too. To me it is obvious that the right to speak my mind to anyone who chooses to associate with me has nothing to do with government, any more than my right to go to whatever church I want (or no church at all). But to them the right to free speech was associated with furthering democracy and it was not an untenable argument, given the ", and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" tacked onto the end of the 1st.
Why am I bringing that up? If the Right to Free Speech is the right to participate in the democratic process, then speech not related to the democratic process (such as talk about target shooting) is not protected. If my broader definition is used, then all speech (including everything from sex talk to politi..well, that's redundant but you know what I mean) is protected.
It all comes down to grammar. Did they declare no laws regarding {religion, speech, press, assemble} to petition the government to redress grievances? Or did they declare no laws regarding {religion}, {speech}, {press}, {assemble}, and {petition the government}? Or no laws regarding {religion}, {speech}, {press}, {assemble and petition the government}?
The 1st bars a completely different set of laws depending on which of those interpretations you follow.
Same sort of questions hold with the 2nd. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" is a noun, describing some known concept, and whether a given law (such as against concealed carry) infringes that concept depends entirely on what "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" is. You and I think the right is for us, private citizens, to do pretty much anything related to keeping, carrying, and using guns. Others think "The People" is intended in the "The People v. Larry Flynt" sense and the 2nd was to prevent what happened in Tijuana Mexico in 2007, when the Federal Government of Mexico confiscated all the guns from the city police force.
You can read "infringed" as absolutely as you want, but unless you own the definition of the right, our opponents can turn around and argue that a particular law doesn't infringe on the right at all even as it clearly does to us.
A lot of the current progress in building up good pro-gun 2A case law started with establishing our conception of that named right (RotPtKBA) as the right conception. Finding historical citations (Such as a Senate journal entry showing that the Senate rejected "the wording bear arms for the common defense" as part of the original 2A) and shaping an academic understanding of what, exactly, the people who wrote the 2A thought they were naming when they named that right. Only once "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" is universally understood to mean what we think it means does the absoluteness of "infringed" become an issue.
