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.
Congress shall have power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Now what is convoluted or unclear? This was deemed a national security issue and that's why they granted such a power to Congress. Two years later, they flat out said a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state.
How can a State disarm its citizens without violating the above Clauses and the Second Amendment?