Horse hockey. The original purpose of the amendment was to provide citizenship for former slaves and give them full civil rights.
In my opinion, by the way, the United States v Cruikshank et al (94 U.S. 542)(1875) spells out the limitations of the 14th much better.
3. The government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
4. The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection, existed long before the adoption of the Constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the national government alone. It left the authority of the States unimpaired, added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States, and guaranteed the continuance of the right only against Congressional interference. The people, for their protection in the enjoyment of it, must, therefore, look to the States, where the power for that purpose was originally placed.
5. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or duties of the national government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of and guaranteed by the United States. The very idea of a government republican in form implies that right, and an invasion of it presents a case within the sovereignty of the United States.
6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.
You are trying to twist a decision that is based on natural rights and/or unenumerated rights into supporting anti-RKBA laws at the state and local level - something explicitly contradicted by the language above.
But such gymnastics are expected from someone who can them immediately turn around and claim that, the Prohibition amendment notwithstanding, you can read authorization for the Drug War into the U.S. Constitution.
And if you find my inference that you are on the Drug War gravy train insulting, how about you admit or deny it?
That's true, but it did so by applying the protections of the Bill of Rights, and the protections contained in the main body of the Constitution, against the states.
You would like Cruikshank . It's a really good example of the Court taking a Constitutional provision and stripping it of any meaning at all. IIRC, the only post 14th amendment case it cited was the Slaughter-House case, which did not involve an enumerated right explicitly protected by the Federal Constitution. It only took latter more than a century to fufill the mandate of the 14th amendment, a task which is actually not yet complete.
The protection of the rights of the people by the federal courts, under the 14th amendment actually fits quite well with the Constitution's mandate that the Federal government guarantee to the states a republican form of government (Art IV, sec 4).