You cited a 400 page BOOK and suggested I read it. You couldn't even give me an excerpt.
You ignored this one for instance: US House from June 28th, 1856
Uh, yeah I ignored it. I don't consider something from 1856 as supportive of what the Founding Fathers meant by the second amendment.
"Sounds like Vermont knew it was giving up power to the FedGov"
The U.S. Constitution is a contract between the states and the newly formed federal government. Vermont was simply saying that it recognizes the contract to be binding on both parties.
"You further completely ignored this:"
How would you have me respond to a white box with a red X?
Better start reading now. You've got a long way to go before you have anywhere near the historical perspective you ought to have to even be educated enough to make a lick of sense. Your Brady Bunch reasoning is getting a bit much to take.
Also, that snippet from 1856 was about applying the Constitution to the new Territories. This was to illustrate the view our government had up until just recently when gun-banning folks like yourself decided that via judicial malfeasance you can make a "living Constitution" mean anything you want it to.
Your "incorporation" doctrine is the last gasp of a dying mindset. One that is trying to preserve some imaginary State power to ignore basic human Rights and institute tyranny at the State level. This is as wrong headed legally as it is philosophically. Neither the State, nor the FedGov has the power, nor the "right", to infringe on our Rights as Individuals.
Not without suffering the consequences at least...
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson, 1787