was the intent of the 2A to apply to the states?

[rodbender]

I urge all the 'Constitutional Scholars' on this thread to do a quick study of American history. Perhaps pick up a Kevin Gutzman or Tom Woods book on this subject.
You'll find that the federal Constitution is a FEDERAL document. Until passage of the 14th amendment (and even some of the people who wrote/voted for that amendment didn't believe it incorporated the BOR as fully as it is interpreted today) the BOR was simply a restriction on the federal government.

One of the arguments Jefferson and Madison made against the dreaded Alien and Sedition acts which criminalized free speech criticizing the federal government, was that only the STATES had the power to pass laws abridging free speech, if their state constitution so allowed it. Therefore it was a violation of not only the 1st amendment because it was a federal law, but a violation of the 10th amendment.
As previously pointed out, many states had State Churches funded through taxation, which is an obvious violation of the 1st amendment if the FEDERAL government did so. Even the anti-federalist Patrick Henry argued AGAINST a national establishment of religion, but argued for a VIRGINIA state establishment of religion.

We must get rid of the nationalist view of the US to understand pre 14th amendment america. The Constitution, even being the totally ineffective document it has been at limiting federal power, was a document that only allowed 18 powers to be carried about by congress. All other governing was left to the states. Most of the people we consider 'patriots' from the founding era, considered themselves citizens of the states they inhabited, not AMERICAN citizens. The United States was referred to in the plural as 'these united States.'

If the 2A really applied to the states as well as federal government from the beginning, federal courts would of been striking down the first laws passed by the states abridging arms ownership. Period.

But this is a useless discussion.
The constitution has failed abysmally in protecting ones liberty. People still clinging to the notion that the 2A protects their right to bear arms, in light of the over 20K laws infringing on your right to bear arms are just in total denial.

Lysander Spooner had it right:
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

We have a winner!!!!!!!

Especially the part about the "useless discussion".

 

[since9]

But this is a useless discussion.

Not at all - it's very enlightening. Let's stipulate for a moment that your statement is correct: Do you usually spend half an hour participating in "useless" discussions?

The constitution has failed abysmally in protecting ones liberty.

It's not the Constitution that protects our liberty. That's our job, from each and every citizen, progressively up through higher and higher levels of sworn oath-keepers. The Constitution merely codifies our liberties, and it's done an exception job of doing just that. If our liberties haven't been well protected, it's because some people have let down their guard, while others have intentionally usurped their freedoms.