I can’t agree with your well-established principle (somebody needs to un-establish it).
Why call ourselves the United States of America if we haven’t, under our Constitution, agreed to accept those enumerated ‘natural rights’ as uniform, inalienable precepts by which we partially define our existence …. and whose sanctity we protect from any (federal, state, local) government interference?
I agree with you that ‘general [Constitutional] terms’ which limit government power do not apply to the states, but rather only to the federal government. Strictly defining, and reining in possible abuses of, federal government power were perhaps the Framers’ most overwhelming concerns.
But, when considering the constitutionality of state laws which infringe upon the American citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, we are not talking about ‘general Constitutional terms’ as regards the limits of government. We are talking about ‘general Constitutional terms’ as regards the citizens’ ‘natural rights’. They are two entirely different considerations. One enumerates strict parameters within which the general (federal) government may operate. The other enumerates individual rights over which no form of government may trespass. Different color horses we’re talking about here.
I abhor (the all-too-frequent) federal court decisions which chip away at states’ rights. But any federal court which declares a state law prohibiting or restricting its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms is simply performing its Constitutional duty (to uphold). That (Constitutionally purist) kind of ruling is an all-to-infrequent occurrence today, which makes me even more resolved to defend it.
We call ourselves the United States because ours is a system where the primary locus of sovereignty is in the states, and it's their primary responsibility to protect those natural rights you mention. If they fail to do so, then there's not much the federal government can do for them, but there is plenty the federal government can do to them, if it's not kept within proper bounds.
Now, I'm having a bit of trouble following you in your last couple of responses, so I'd like to backtrack a little. You started off saying,
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.
So far, so good. It sounds like you were agreeing with what I said, that the BOR was intended by the Preamble to apply against the federal government only. But you then said in this last post,
But, when considering the constitutionality of state laws which infringe upon the American citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, we are not talking about ‘general Constitutional terms’ as regards the limits of government. We are talking about ‘general Constitutional terms’ as regards the citizens’ ‘natural rights’.
If you agree that the intent behind the BOR was "to ensure that the powers that the federal government received through that very document would be specifically defined, and minimal," then it would have to follow that we are indeed "talking about 'general Constitutional terms' as regards the limits of government." Wouldn't it seem?