Just as state legislators are representatives of the people.
Now tell me again why “we the people” would ratify a doucment that allows State governments to disarm them
Their existing state constitutions and laws allowed or forbade that prior to the Constitutional Convention delegating limited powers to the newly formed federal government.
If they wanted to amend their state constitutions, they would have amended their state constitutions.
Rights are not rights if the can be infringed for no reason at all by any government body at all. You're reading of the Second allows states to disarm the people for no reason at all. Logically it also allows them to deny them life, liberty or property for no reason or any reason at all.
Do you honestly think this is what the folks signed on to?
Forget incorporation doctrine and SCOTUS opinions. Do you really think early Americans fresh off a war fought with tyranny would sign on to such a notion?
If they wanted to amend their state constitutions, they would have amended their state constitutions.
The US Constitution already delegated limited powers to the newly formed federal government. The purpose of the constitutional convention that incorporated the Bill of Rights was for clarifying federal and state powers, and also for clarifying rights retained by the people (not just the states).
During the process, some restrictions were specifically imposed on Congress; other rights of the people were asserted as declaratory rights that may not be infringed. Unless the participants of the convention were stupid (which you have already argued they were not) this distinction of declaratory rights and restrictions of congressional powers was done for a reason. There was no need to amend state constitutions.