I understand your view, but
No, obviously you don't understand.
as you know from our previous discussion of this, I find the power to regulate arms dangerously arbitrary given the lack of any such provision within the amendment.
The power to reasonably regulate arms is protected by the rest of our constitutional rule of law. Prohibitions are not 'reasonable'.
What is to prevent the strict regulation of hazardous substances/weapons from applying to other arms?
Common sense law applied by rational men. - If we can't find rational 'lawmakers', we throw the rascals out & replace them. - If we cant throw them out we rebel. - Got the concept?
To the left-wing, every order of regulation against arms is perfectly reasonable, as the weapons' very existence is thought to endanger the rights of others, common interests, or whatever justification may fall under the purview of police powers. We cannot replace the sizeable portion of our population that promotes and facilitates this tyranny, at best we can separate ourselves from them, which is why I subscribe to the States' rights view.