While I agree with your sentiment, I must disagree on grounds of interpretation..
The 2nd amendment only prohibits infringement of the individual's RKBA, it does not grant that Right to the People.
The principle that "the people" have an "inalienable" right to keep and bear arms is an implicite admission in the 2nd amendment..
Also, ONE REASON stated is that the people, individually or as a group, (militia) be able to defend themselves, the state or the nation in times of emergency..
( I classify an "emergency" as someone attempting to assault or murder me, my family, freinds, or innocent bystanders, especially if a law enforcement officer is not present to resolve the situation.. if an LEO is present, I can still assist..)
I don't have any problem with "defining" RKBA as an individual right, I believe that it is..
My problem is using the 2nd amendment to define that right..
The 2nd is just about prohibiting interference with that right.. not the right itself..
The context of that post was, why wasn't the Federal gov't making all gun control laws illegal?
We do not allow slavery anymore, so why not gun control laws.
They have not done so because they do not see the Bill of Rights in terms of natural law anymore.
Thus, these rights are now defined in a positivist way.
Had not a philosophical change occurred in the beginning of the 20th century, it is possible that the Federal gov't would have ensured that the 2nd amendment was protected in all 50 states.
State rights (in this case 'local rights') are now being used to deprive individuals of that right in DC and the Congress is trying to overturn that ban based on the Bill of Rights seen as a natural law.
You will see Conservatives join with liberals to resist overthrowing this ban because of what they call Federal ínterference'.
This view is based on a misquided notion that a State has a right, rather then the natural law view that the State only exists to protect the rights of individuals.