All but 2 states have their own constitutional standards regarding self-protection.
A strict constructionist/original intent sort of guy would instantly argue that firearms are subject only to state control ~ and then argue that out within the context of the state constitutions.
To apply the Bill of Rights except for the 9th and 10th amendments directly to the states you have to turn into a mind-numbed, robot-like, knee-jerk Leftwingtard who cr*ps on the Founders intentions.
I think you may have been missing the point of this debate ~
Let me help you out here:
"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."
My opinion is that this is not an accident, that the Second Amendment is not explicitly just a prohibition against action by Congress. I believe that our Founders would have considered it unthinkable that the states would infringe the right to keep and bear arms of their own citizens.
The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary because the Founders were wrong. The states were capable of infringing the right to keep and bear arms of their own citizens, as citizenship was defined after the Civil War.
The recent McDonald decision would appear to constrain the states such that the only state laws which would be permissible would also be permissible as federal laws. We will have to wait to see how this plays out in the courts.