"So the states legislatures are free to compromise the security and freedom of it's citizens,""Free to compromise?" Well they could try, I suppose.
First, it would have to be constitutional. Second, they'd have to have the consent of the governed, otherwise the legislation will never pass.
"and the federal government has no interest, power, authority or responsibility to prevent it "
Wow, I thought you'd be the last one to want federal interference in a state's business.
"the security and freedom of the individual states is unrelated to the security and freedom of the nation?"
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
The right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state (if you believe the Second Amendment). If that right is infringed, that security is compromised. The federal government is charged with insuring our national security. If the condition of the security of the states affects the security of the nation, then you'd think the same reasoning that lets the federal government interfere in the state's affairs if they affect interstate commerce would let them interfere if it affects national security. To figure out why those arguments aren't extended to the right to keep and bear arms, you need only look at the philosophical basis for those arguments.