Originally Posted by La literatura
Yes, it did. First of all, all of the Bill of Rights for most of American history were federal limitations. Not limitations on the state. So, when the 2nd Amend says that 'people have the right to keep and bear Arms' it's not saying, in its original meaning, that the state can't prohibit guns. A state was certainly able to do so. For most of American history, the meaning was intrinsically tied into federal limitations of state militias. In 1939, for example, in United States v. Miller, federal gun convictions against persons was okay because the guns targeted weren't for the purposes of a well-regulated militia.
Now perhaps you will know why Heller and McDonald were so notable.
Only after those two cases was it constitutionally proscribed that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated to personal rights of bearing arms totally unrelated to militias, and that states couldn't offend those rights.
Revisionist ignorant bullshit. You sound like a ****ing high school student who has little to no understanding of context or history. Heller is notable because it had to define what was UNDERSTOOD in the past. Only after the 2nd Amendment came under assault was it necessary.
It's sad how intelligent you THINK you are compared to reality. Now, admittedly you aren't Direckshun stupid, but you really need to think a bit more before you spot off on subjects you clearly know little about.