Free as in the community, subject to the whims of those who would harm them, just like the legally free (e.g., you and I).
The bigger question to me isn’t what the law is. It is what it is, and we need laws. And most people will alter their actions to comply with the law in order to stay free.
I see the Constitution/Bill of Rights as the way the founding fathers set forth what government CANNOT limit. They’re forming a new nation based on personal freedoms and God-given rights. They know laws are needed, but they’re putting together a founding document to enumerate the non-negotiables.
First thing they say is untouchable is the freedom of a man to speak what he wants, worship how he wants (etc.). In effect make whatever laws you want, but you CANNOT impose on these rights.
The second prohibition they place on the new government is that it CANNOT infringe on a man’s right to own and carry “arms”. Period. It doesn’t say which kind (options were obviously much different then, but the left no wiggle room). And it doesn’t place limits on the “who”.
The question then is at what point CAN the Republic step in and override a provision of the Bill of Rights? There are legal and judicial precedent where this has been decided. (Because a law exists does not mean it’s Constitutional.) So we have to abide by these or face punishment from our government, no matter the intent of the founding fathers. Fair enough.
That brings me to the larger philosophical question around which most of my discussion revolves: why shouldn’t all men have the right to defend their lives without facing punishment from the government? Is this right truly God-given, a right of basic human survival, or is it limited by past indiscretions?
I may think I know that answer, but it’s my answer - which ultimately doesn’t matter. And NOTHING in my position is in SUPPORT of the violent felon in the sense of me advocating for them as bad dudes. If we presume that all laws are followed by all people, good and bad, surely we’d be in a safer world with the existing laws restricting gun access of felons. But as I’ve stated multiple times, that world does not and never will exist regardless of the law. I believe that although a man is a felon he has the right to defend himself in a legitimate exercise of self defense. And since felons get guns anyhow the felon in possession laws are worthless IMO. The better solution is address the problem where no limits have been placed - tougher penalties on violent crime and ENFORCEMENT OF THESE LAWS (I.e., keep their butts in prison!)!
What scares me is the door that’s suddenly been blown wide open to limit free speech, religious freedom and whatever else I’m missing. The Bill of Rights is effectively being tossed to the wayside. And I think the history of 2A infringement and the incessant barrage of 2A infringing rules being imposed sets the precedent and paves the way for it’s (BoR’s) dismantling. The good news is that although the politically- driven courts are trying to re-write law, we are scoring important victories against many of these infringements. I hope this continues. Of course we all know that at some point the USSC is gonna flip. And we’re in trouble.
I would suggest the bill of rights does place a limit on the "who." I would say a strong case could be made based on the 5th amendment. "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." As long as due process was followed, someone could be deprived of liberty. I say the 2nd amendment is an example of that liberty.