The way I look at the preamble (the way I believe it was intended to be interpreted) is as an expression that the delegates to the conventions of many of the states were deeply concerned that not enough parameters were defined within the Constitution itself to ensure that the powers that the federal government received through that very document would be specifically defined, and minimal.
I believe their fear was justified in that regard, but I don’t believe the ‘declaratory clauses’ they wanted to add had anything to do with what I like to call ‘natural rights’ (freedom to speak, freedom to congregate, freedom to defend oneself …. ).
By ratifying the Constitution itself, the various states were, in effect, placing their trust in three concepts:
(1) that the ‘natural (God-given) rights’ that each individual state had heretofore attempted to protect in its own constitution were now ensured under the much broader (and uniformly defined) U.S. Constitution.
(2) that the responsibilities of the federal government would consist of those which would better be administered on a federal level rather than a state level, would be minimal, clearly defined, and would not infringe on the rights of the individual states or its inhabitants.
(3) that anything not falling under the ‘better administered on a federal level’ label would be left to the discretion of the states and/or the people.
Now, more than two hundred years later, it is disingenuous for special-interest groups to claim that the Constitution clearly states that the federal government cannot abridge the right to keep and bear arms, and, by insinuation, the states are allowed to do so. The Constitution clearly states that the right to keep and bears arms is not to be infringed by any government body. And such an interpretation of the Framers’ intent in no way infringes upon states’ rights. Such an interpretation simply illustrates the supremacy of individual rights, which makes the concept of states’ rights pale in significance.
If there is anyone who doubts where, in order of preference, the Founders would have placed individual rights vs. states’ rights, versus federal power, they had better go back and read the Founders’ writings.
The right to keep and bear arms was considered, both by the states which ratified the Constitution, and by the Framers themselves, to be one of those ‘natural rights’ over which no government institution has oversight. And I don’t believe the preamble to the Bill of Rights was as much a reflection on such natural rights as it was a statement of fear that those areas in which state governments ought to rein supreme (‘natural rights’ being vehemently excluded from inclusion in that category) might someday be usurped from the states by the federal government, unless further declaratory and descriptive clauses were added (and I believe they were right).
It does indeed cause such an infringement, if it results in giving federal judges the power to second-guess state laws, in any area where the Constitution does not specifically restrict state action. Giving them that power has already contributed greatly to the virtual emasculation of state government's ability to act as an important check on the power of the federal government.
And it's a very well-established principle of construction that where the Constitution speaks in general terms, it only applies to the general government, because it's a Constitution of the United States, it's purpose being to create and delimit federal powers. It's only when it indicates the states by word (as in "No State shall...") that its strictures apply to the states.