While I agree that seems to be the intent of Second Ammendment to allow the States to provide for their own defense even against the Fed. that to me though extends to the individuals as saying that te Fed. can't disarm individuals in the States. Since the States have no standing armies of their own if the individuals were disarmed by the Fed. they couldn't be called upon for the militia. A collective right in this case is the same as an individual right.
The counter is that the National Guard units are under state control (mostly) and have their own hand-me-down weapons which were given to them by the federal government. Therefore the states are armed and the second amendment is satisfied.
Maybe so. However, I respectfully dissent if you are setting forth the proposition that this invalidates the right to own a gun. That is akin to saying that in this day and age, the 10th Amendment is invalid because states have had so much of their power usurped by the federal government. In Lopez, the Supreme Court specifically said that such changes do not invalidate any of the provisions of the Constitution.
