With respect to militia weapons, the federal militia was constituted in 1792 (if my memory serves), and while the statute has been modified (last in the 1950s), all adult males ages 17-45 are members of the unorganized militia unto this day. If a state could deny its citizens the right to own arms of a type which are suitable for militia (i.e. military) service (e.g. limit ownership to single shot rimfire .22 LR), then the Congress could not call forth the militia as provided in Article I, Section 8 Clause 15. If the states could disarm the citizens then Article II section 2 clause 1 which empowers the President to command the state's militias would be meaningless. No reasonable form of construction for the Constitution can be accepted which makes its provisions (the Constitution's) meaningless. RP asks us to believe an interpretation which would make it possible for a state governor to collude with a foreign power to take over the state and tyranize the citizens (hey kind of sounds like the UN today, huh?).
Sure they can. Article I, Section 8 Clause 16 allows the federal government to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia ..."
What's the problem?
"RP asks us to believe an interpretation ..."
What????