Find The Boots

Why is it that the left side of the aisle interprets the 2nd Amendment as providing the right to bear arms to state militias? Their argument says that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "The People" as expressed through the national guard units of the states. They jump from the collective desire of a well regulated militia necessarily requiring armed individuals to a collective right extended only to the militia.

So how about free speech? Search and seizure? The First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments all apply to "The People" or "Persons". Why is it that people of the liberal persuasion are stringent in their insistence of the rights of "The People" in the Bill of Rights, except for the 2nd Amendment? By their interpretation, the First Amendment merely requires that Congress make no law restricting the right of the States to peaceably assemble and petition.
If you think the societal context has changed and the 2nd Amendment should no longer be in force, then let's have a debate about that and you can try to get the 2nd Amendment repealed. There's a mechanism in the Constitution to do that. But let's set aside the silly argument that "The People" refers to the States in the 2nd Amendment, but refers to individuals for the other Amendments.

And if you still want to persist in that argument, how about citing a single writing from someone contemporary to the founding fathers, a founder, an early Supreme Court case, anything, that supports your interpretation. As far as I can tell, this moronic argument didn't rear its deformed head until about 1950. For bonus points you can tell me where in these hallowed words:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

there's any room for licensing, registration, or banning of guns in certain jurisdictions.

To quote a line from Real Genius: Which word didn't you understand?