The sum total of what it says is, "In later opinions, chiefly Presser v. Illinois and Miller v. Texas the Supreme Court adhered to the view (of Cruikshank). Cruikshank has clearly been superseded by twentieth century opinions which hold that portions of the Bill of Rights — and in particular the right to assembly with which Cruikshank dealt in addition to the Second Amendment — are binding upon the state governments. Given the legislative history of the Civil Rights Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment, and the more expanded views of incorporation which have become accepted in our own century, it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be and should be protected under the civil rights statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment against infringement by officials acting under color of state law."
So what your link is saying is that despite three (3) USSC rulings (looks like I missed one), the author is of the opinion that the second amendment was meant to be and should be binding upon the states.
Yeah, right. And I am of the opinion that I was meant to be, and should be, rich and handsome. Whoop de do.
Ah, but instead you are an ugly old narc parroting the line of the gun grabbers.
Keep on spinning. You look like a top at this point.