We also wouldn’t be having this discussion if the 2nd amendment had solely said “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. But it doesn’t.
Only the Second Amendment includes language which its proponents would like to simply ignore.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” has meaning. It is best understood in the context of the time. It preserves a state right.
Amendments have been incorporated to the states, but on a case by case basis, based on the understanding that the right being preserved was an individual right, and pursuant to the authority of the 14th amendment.
But that first requires a determination that the right being encapsulated is an individual right. I do understand why some may decide the 2nd does that - it uses the term “the People”, after all.
But, in the context of the time, I think that term is best read as a comparison to a standing “professional” army, of which the founders were wary. Under classic “originalist” philosophy, it was a federal restriction on state sovereignty, and should have remained so.
(Personally, I’m okay with the Supreme Court saying that, as our country has evolved, it has come to be understood as a personal right to own a weapon, and therefore should be protected generally, although it is the proper subject of regulations and restrictions. But that requires an acknowledgment that the constitution can be interpreted in a way not originally contemplated by its authors, something that most 2nd amendment proponents- who tend also to be right wing - disparage).