I recognized historical facts.
Very good, we've established your position, for whatever reason. How about addressing the meat of my inquiry?
[Given that the states where not constrained,] would not [the states' power to suppress the formation of the militia] render the text internally contradictory [and therefore stillborn]?
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
From where would spring the necessary militia if every state was free to ban its very inception?
If the restraint on infringement where not universal, the enumeration of the 2nd would have been a waste of ink. shall not be infringed