Would you then agree, that if 51% of California wanted a gun ban, that you would support the government of California’s right to do so?
There's no Second Amendment bar to it. Depending on the weapons, there could arguably be an Article 1 Section 8 objection.
Presser:
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
I know that wasn't directed to me, but this is starting to feel like "the endless thread."
The RKBA can and does exist independently from the 2nd amendment. It even uses the same words, "RKBA" that the 2nd amendment uses. But the RKBA does not depend on the 2nd for its life within the states. States are not free to prohibit keep and bear arms, even setting the 2nd aside. The United States Supreme Court said exactly that.
Mojave's concern is that if the feds are the ultimate and only authority on what RKBA means, then RKBA can be reduced, by Congress and SCOTUS, to an unrecognizable form -- and those clamoring for incorporation will bear the lion's share of the blame for that.
He even expressed an example - federal law prohibiting CCW. Maybe that's not in the cards for about 20-50 years, so how about federal licensing and/or registration, with a periodic re-up.
The feds are not your friend.