Which is why you need to look at the relevant case law. We've had over 200 years of Supreme Court holdings that define the limits of our various amendments. I'm not trying to be rude here, but you keep making the argument that you don't see it spelled out literally in the Constitution. Such a literalist argument doesn't get you anywhere.
For instance, the Constitution says that we are entitled to due process. Ok, so what counts as "due process." The Constitution itself doesn't expand on the concept, so you turn to SCOTUS as the Constitutionally identified branch that gets to make such interpretations for the answer.
To that effect, the State can order private property seized under certain conditions. Now, as our right to bear arms is a fundamental right, the State must pass the highest level of scrutiny to legally infringe, but it can be done. For instance, the State can seize firearms (private property) from convicted felons. Further, the state can in certain circumstances prevent citizens who have committed no wrong from owning or possessing firearms, as they do with small children. SCOTUS has held both of these to be constitutional.
