Better start reading now. You've got a long way to go before you have anywhere near the historical perspective you ought to have to even be educated enough to make a lick of sense. Your Brady Bunch reasoning is getting a bit much to take.
Also, that snippet from 1856 was about applying the Constitution to the new Territories. This was to illustrate the view our government had up until just recently when gun-banning folks like yourself decided that via judicial malfeasance you can make a "living Constitution" mean anything you want it to.
Your "incorporation" doctrine is the last gasp of a dying mindset. One that is trying to preserve some imaginary State power to ignore basic human Rights and institute tyranny at the State level. This is as wrong headed legally as it is philosophically. Neither the State, nor the FedGov has the power, nor the "right", to infringe on our Rights as Individuals.
Not without suffering the consequences at least...
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Yep. Just as the Constitution applied to the states. So?
It said that "the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms ... as defined in the constitution of the United States". And that definition was that the federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia.
"This was to illustrate the view our government had up until just recently"
Up until just recently? United States v. Cruikshank was an 1875 case where the U.S. Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government".
They even went further by saying that NONE of the BOR applied to the states:
"This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State Government in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone."