You miss the point. You can understand the meaning of a particular term is still not know or understand the intention of it's use in a given clause.
Generally your argument is weak. You don't address the amount of evidence against an intended constitutional revolution you seem to wish for. Why do you wish for it?
Besides the point and the weight of evidence against your theory, I'm puzzled why someone here on FR who is supposedly a conservative is in favor of unlimited federal power to regulate the states. The enemy of gun possession or any of your freedoms and rights is not the states, it is the feds. Why do you want expansive federal power that has proven to be the greatest threat to our way of life. It's not only constitutionally invalid, it is degenerative to our healthy and free society.
So? You still must understand the meaning of a particular term being used in the text of a clause before you can make an informed opinion on the intention of its use in that clause. It's a self-evident point.
I'm puzzled why someone here on FR who is supposedly a conservative is in favor of unlimited federal power to regulate the states.
It is neither an unreasonable nor radical position that every US citizen has the RKBA, regardless of what any level of government says. I gave you two pre-Civil War cases that agree with that position, as well as Clarence Thomas. You, OTOH, think the states can outlaw guns and impose a tyranny on their citizens, and there is nothing in the Constitution to stop them.
Here's what Jim Robinson says about our fundamental rights =>
Our Constitution explicitly restricts the power of our federal government; and our Bill of Rights guarantees that NO government may infringe upon our God given unalienable rights.
http://www.freerepublic.com/about.htm
I seem to be in good company.