A Rational Anarchist wrote:Why/how is any of this relevant to the incorporation of the 2nd into the 14th amendment, which OP contends is invalid despite the fact that said incorporation is established SCOTUS precedent?
It is easy enough to conclude that the 14th including every amendment before and after it, does apply to the states if you look at the underlying context. At one time the US federal government was too weak.
Initially the "Bill of Rights" only protected US citizens from the federal government but their state government was still able to oppress them in any number of ways. That did happen and did get out of control and the US Civil War did happen, so eventually the 14th amendment was passed to formally prevent state governments from not respecting what is in the US Constitution and play by the same rules that the US federal government does on certain matters.
What the OP claims used to be true, but isn't anymore because the national circumstances have permanently changed. Just as for example, all US citizens 18 or older can vote now when previously, only land owners could.
If people want to discuss the 2nd amendment, they ought to know why it exists in the first place. I don't think it is impossible if in the far future for example, there isn't an individual right to own firearms anymore, it really depends on what happens. If the 2nd amendment winds up getting too abused or not by the general public over the long term. The US government and law is after all, a reflection of what the American public wants and the people and special interests which happen to be in charge in a given year.
Personally, I'm okay with law abiding civilians having access to shotguns and rifles, and am perhaps open to gun registration. But given how often handguns are used in crime, I do see the merit of more regulations being placed on concealable firearms.
