You have Article I Section 8 regarding the Militia, you have "shall not be infringed", and you have P's&I's which are guaranteed against State infringement.
If you can't find an individual RKBA in the Constitution, then it's because you choose not to, IMO.
You're sort of calling me a liar here. I love guns more than I do people. If I thought the US cons protected my guns against filthy, scum-f*** people, I'd scream it from the rooftops. Believe me. Has anybody else, ever, anywhere, at any time, outlined this art 1, BOR, P&I case? If nobody ever has, it's probably because it wasn't intended. Here's another question -- if the framers had wanted the states to not pass gun laws, don't you think they might have actually said so, somewhere? Read art 1, sec 10, the part of the cons that deals with state prohibitions. You won't see anything about guns at all. Also, and this is quite important, the original cons was ratified WITHOUT A BILL OF RITES AT ALL. The BOR came at least one year later. So, I ask you, what gun protections did the framers put in the original cons? Answer -- the enumeration, which prohibited the fed gove from touching my guns.
Man, why go through such contortions?
If you can't find an individual RKBA in the Constitution, then it's because you choose not to, IMO.
The contortions are typical of those with the 'states rights' POV.
If our individual rights, as outlined in the Amendments, can NOT be infringed upon by State & local governments, the whole 'moral majority rule' house of cards comes tumbling down.
States have never been granted the power to enact prohibitions on our rights to life, liberty, or property.