As usual, a left winger sees but does not comprehend.  You should try reading the Federalist Papers and learning history and read less Huff Post.
"State" here does not mean the Federal government.  It literally means the State of Massachusetts, the State of Pennsylvania, the State of New York, etc.
The "Well Regulated " part means that men know how to keep, maintain and use their weapons.
The "Militia" was  EVERY able bodied man in each state that was capable of standing in a line and firing his gun. They did not have to take an oath, they did not have to wear a uniform, they did not even have to consider themselves "military".  Their citizenship in their State was enough.

As usual, a left winger sees but does not comprehend.  You should try reading the Federalist Papers and learning history and read less Huff Post.
"State" here does not mean the Federal government.  It literally means the State of Massachusetts, the State of Pennsylvania, the State of New York, etc.
The "Well Regulated " part means that men know how to keep, maintain and use their weapons.
The "Militia" was  EVERY able bodied man in each state that was capable of standing in a line and firing his gun. They did not have to take an oath, they did not have to wear a uniform, they did not even have to consider themselves "military".  Their citizenship in their State was enough.

I'm confused:  you told someone to go read the federalist papers concerning the bill of rights- right?  That the federalist papers explains how to interpret the bill of rights.   The one article from the FPs I posted was the only one that mentions a bill of rights that I am aware of- from Hamilton- that they are bad and we shouldn't go and itemize the rights because people will think that the bill o rights is the be all end all of our rights.  It's not.  

The Federalist Papers have nothing to do with the bill of rights.  the BofR was not addressed until a few years later, after the constitution was passed.  the Fed papers were to sell the constitution.  That's all I was saying.  

I don't need to "understand" the "context" of the constitution- I am willing to bet any amount of money that  I know much more than you do on the founding fathers, the constitution, and the bill of rights.  You want to adds a whole layer of argument as to state versus fed, blah-blah-blah.  And I think you are wrong.  Please, tell me, what is the difference between the federal powers and the state powers.  Each have three responsibilities- what are they?  If you don't know them- please don't lecture me.  

As to your second point- we have a constitution because it was clear to the founding fathers that we needed the power to tax.  Who specifically were against the power of taxation?  Please name them- because you'll find they were the radicals who were minor players in this subject.  Jefferson in particular, and Madison and Monroe- all believed in an organic form of government, one where the attitudes and beliefs of the people will change and the governing documents must be able to change or war would result.  See Jefferson's letters where he discusses the need for a wall of separation with religion and the state- he asks what would happen if we became largely hundi, but with a christian theology? War.  his goal was to create a lasting document that would need to be refreshed, not one that was set in stone.  Also see the areas of the federalist papers that discuss why we should be a single union instead of 2 or more federal governments covering the U.S. property that was made to counter the argument as to our form of democracy being too big to last- the object is to create an instrument to last.  It would need tweaking, but in such a way as to mniimize any interference to the most important thing- commerce and economy.  

Your argument about the 2nd amendment is not 100% correct- it is debated and if you go and read Madison's original language of what he wanted for the 2nd amendment (again- he was also against the Bill of Rights) you will see it was not a protection from the government, but clearly was a mechanism to protect the government.  It goes hand in hand with the idea of no standing army explicitly put in the constitution- no standing army but we have militias ready to act as needed.  Armies being the biggest threat.  

You could make the argument that everyone had guns.  But it is considered a natural law, not a common law.  It was not common law originating from Britain because the average Brit couldn't own a gun- only the aristocracy could own guns.  

A final note- you are trying to argue that universal healthcare is beyond the scope of the federal govt?  Are you saying it's a state issue?  Again- please explain the duties of the state and the duties of the fed, and you'll realize the real answer here.  

Again- things change.  As buddhists believe- pain comes from a refusal to accept change.  Jefferson and Madison were very concerned about change and ensuring that war is avoided at all costs.  But we can't go aroudn arguing what ought to be- we need to argue what is.   The difference is basically arguing (yours it seems) a moral philosophy/idealogy  versus a pragmatic one.  

I apologize if anything is unclear here- I am at work and my boss is noting I'm not working