Daniel has about 5 things that he repeats endlessly, thinking they are profound.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.Means nothing to me. Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court. Your fallacies are even less, impressive.Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
Repeating it does not help because it does imply all levels of government are equally barred from infringement.
It takes other sources to see how popular sentiments were against federal powers but not against state powers.