Not necessarily. It just says that if you have that right, Congress shall not abridge it. Your "right" to free speech is defined and protected by your state constitution.
Well, it used to be. Now, thanks to the 14th amendment, your right to free speech is defined and "protected" by the federal government. Doncha just love the way Congress recently defined it?
And you want them to also define your gun rights, huh?
Very creative. And all these years I thought that it referred to one of my unalienable rights along with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Please tell me what "liberty" was being referred to by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence? Is there no element of tyranny practiced by the monarchy and from which we are protected by the Bill of Rights?
Please explain why the Ninth Circus claims that the Second Amendment is a "collective right"? Using your interpretation of the necessity for a separate individual right to keep and bear arms for each state, why was it necessary for the Ninth to declare the Second Amendment to not protect an individual right?
What possible purpose can be served by an individual right as expressed in the Second Amendment? You would seem to be stating that it has no effect whatever. If a state has an RKBA, then its citizens have an individual right. If a state does not have an RKBA, then the citizens of that state do not have an individual right.
Why did our Founders bother?