So you are comfortable with the states having the authority to ban firearms?
"Original intent" interpertation of the Constitution does not make allowances for personal comfort.
Do prohibitionists ever read the Tenth Amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That's the deal each state agreed to when it ratified the Constitution.
This prohibits the states from banning firearms, as well as from banning churches, taxing imports from other states, declaring war, or making treaties with foreign governments.
There is neither a right to use drugs in the Constitution nor a delegation of drug law authority to Washington, therefore it is in every way an appropriate issue for state by state decision making.
In order to ban the sale and manufacture of alcoholic drinks, the proper Constitutional amendment process was carried through (even though a terrible idea).
Likewise, if we were to amend the Constitution to prohibit the possession of marijuana, that would also be an acceptable process, although toward a dubious goal.
I neglected to dot my i's in my previous post by noting that the 14th Amendment extended Bill of Rights restrictions to state governments. But if states want to have, say, California's onerous 'environmental' regulations, nothing in the federal Constitution prohibits that.
Can't. Second Amendment and Art 6 Para 2 should be more than enough to stop that nonsense.
You appear confused over how a Federated Republic works...