Peter has admitted here that we do indeed have the right to bear arms, yet some how where this right is given and in the same sentence it says these rights shall not be infringed he is saying this infringement is pertaining to others rights. This makes no sense of logic and can't even be twisted away from it's context.
No we don't have the right to unlawfully murder another which is upheld in other parts of the constitution, even so I can't even get that meaning from infringe in the sentence and context it is given.
It couldn't possibly mean that the citizen does not have the right to infringe on the governments ability to have a militia or it would have been added to the part of the statement concerning the militia.
Does peter think this is a typo?