The thing about RKBA is the founding fathers saw fit to give it specific mention in the Constitution as a DO NOT MESS WITH freedom. They placed no bounds on its free exercise, not because they knew people needed guns to put meat on the table or fend off foreign soldiers, but because they knew that arms are the last line of defense against out-of-control government. The Constitution was written and ratified for that express purpose -- to ensure government remained under the control of the People.
Art VI Section 2 says the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land, and judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State notwithstanding." What can those words mean except that whatever is in the Constitution trumps everything else? States can certainly make their own laws, but only if they do not contradict the Constitution.
Anti-gunners want us to think that reasonable regulation regarding firearms is not only Constitutional but right and reasonable, and they argue that it must be so because the Federal government has the authority to control anything it wants to control. Every time we strike any sort of compromise on RKBA, we weaken it directly and lay the groundwork for its further weakening.
RKBA was intended to be inviolable. My quick study of the Bill of Rights reveals only a few similarly protected Constitutionally defined freedoms -- those having no "but" or "unless" type clauses attached. Amendments VI, VII, and VIII guarantee speedy and impartial trial, prohibit excessive bail, and forbid cruel and unusual punishments. They define these rights without caveat or restriction; they create no loopholes.
If the founding fathers meant to allow for RKBA to be "reasonably" regulated, why would they intentionally give RKBA the same special station as those rights?