[NutCrackerBoy]

When the constitution confers a right to an "individual", then a state cannot arbitrarily trample that right - such as in the 2nd amendment.

OK, you disagreed with my reading, which is based on Justice Rehnquist's reading, among others. But you did not give any reason why your reading must be the correct one.

The constitution's 2nd amendment, for example, does not confer a right to individuals. It limits the federal government from abridging RKBA. There is a subtle difference. The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA. The state's constitution is responsible for establishing that protection.

[tpaine]

The constitution's 2nd amendment, for example, does not confer a right to individuals.

True enough, Our RKBA's is an inate, self-evident, and inalienable individual right. -- It is not "confered"..

It limits the federal government from abridging RKBA. There is a subtle difference.

It limits ~any~ level of government in the USA from infringments.

The 2nd amendment does not limit state governments from trampling on RKBA. The state's constitution is responsible for establishing that protection.

You did not give any reason why your reading must be the correct one.
Why on earth do you WANT a state to have the power to infringe upon one of your inalienable rights?
Your position makes no sense.

[Nanodik]

NO - if it meant to limit the federal govt's powers, they would have used wording along the lines of "Congress shall make no law" rather than "the right of the individual". If you look at the DOI, individual rights are derived from God and are "inalienable". By recognizing the RKBA as and individual right, the USC prohibits states from passing laws that would infringe on those rights.