So you are saying it applies to the states but not the people?
"That doesn't mean everything in it applies to the states".
You have worked yourself into a corner.
Then according to you it is not the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
State constitutions cannot violate the U.S. Constitution.
Isn't that why there is a 10th amendment? The federal gov was not meant to run the states it is severely limited by the Constitution and BOR. Everything else is up to the states.
All of the state gun restrictions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL as they violate the supreme law of the land.
Now go ahead and twist that to your hearts content.
I for one am not buying your upside down logic.
No. It is.
Think of the U.S. Constitution as a contract or pact between the states and the newly formed federal government. The states are keeping certain powers and ceding others to the federal government. The Supremacy Clause you're referring to says that this contract (or pact) is supreme -- it overrides any other contract (eg., the prior Articles of Confederation).
Whatever is in this new contract (called the U.S. Constitution) is now the supreme law of the land. But the contract never stated that the BOR applied to the states. The first amendment, for example, specifically says "Congress". Now, how can the Supremacy Clause apply the first amendment to the states as "the supreme law of the land"? It can't.
Anything in the U.S. Constitution that only applied to the federal government (like printing money) only applies to the federal government -- do you think the Supremacy Clause means the states can print money?
The first eight amendments, when written, only applied to the federal government. The Supremacy Clause does not change that fact one iota.