Surely, you already understand this. The 2nd protects the "right" to "keep" arms. Any possible meaning of "keep", as the term is used in the 2nd, and thus protected by the 2nd, must qualify as a right. Any possible meaning of "keep", as the term is used in the 2nd, that does not qualify as a right, is invalid, as the 2nd protects the right to "keep" To "possess" a weapon owned by someone other than the possessor is a privilege, not a right, as you do not have a right to anything you do not own. To "maintain" a weapon owned by someone other than the person maintaining it is a privilege, not a right, as you have no right to anything you do not own. The fact the 2nd protects the right to "keep" arms negates any other possible in-context- interpretations of the term, all of which necessitate that said possession is a privilege granted by someone else; thus, "keep" cannot mean anything other than "own", as you cannot have a right to possess or maintain anything you do not own - you can be granted the privilege to do so, but not the right. Everyone - even you - knows that when you lease or rent something owned by someone else, your privilege to do so is granted, defined and limited by your contract; you have no plenary right that something. You can disagree, but it only means you know you present a position you know is false. As it took you a long time to research the validity of you arguments, I expected better from you.