Yep. Just as the Constitution applied to the states. So?
It said that "the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms ... as defined in the constitution of the United States". And that definition was that the federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia.
"This was to illustrate the view our government had up until just recently"
Up until just recently? United States v. Cruikshank was an 1875 case where the U.S. Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government".
They even went further by saying that NONE of the BOR applied to the states:
"This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State Government in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone."
Bullsh*t. In the First Amendment, it says "Congress shall make no law". This does not carry over into the Second that clearly states "shall not be infringed" and makes no distinction as to who may not infringe on said Right. In fact, the Constitution explicitly state that the "Supreme law of the Land" and "laws of any State notwithstanding" are subject to "shall not be infringed". Your mindless maundering notwithstanding, it means exactly what it says.
Your Cruickshank argument has been refuted how many times now? Do we really need to rehash it again?
You don't seem to like people having Rights very much. Are you SURE you are on the correct website? Your logic would go over a lot better on DU.