Saying that a Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed sounds an aweful lot like an "immunity". Despite your idiot rantings about your liberal judicial heros.
"Immune" from what, disarmament? That's a stretch.
Here's another take on the definition of privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States" referred to in the 14th amendment:
"Although the Court has expressed a reluctance to attempt a definitive enumeration of those privileges and immunities of United States citizens which are protected against state encroachment, it nevertheless felt obliged in the Slaughter-House Cases ''to suggest some which owe their existence to the Federal Government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.''
Among those which it then identified were the right of access to the seat of Government and to the seaports, subtreasuries, land officers, and courts of justice in the several States, the right to demand protection of the Federal Government on the high seas or abroad, the right of assembly, the privilege of habeas corpus, the right to use the navigable waters of the United States, and rights secured by treaty.
In Twining v. New Jersey, the Court recognized ''among the rights and privileges'' of national citizenship the right to pass freely from State to State, the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances, the right to vote for national officers, the right to enter public lands, the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshal, and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws.
Earlier, in a decision not mentioned in Twining, the Court had also acknowledged that the carrying on of interstate commerce is ''a right which every citizen of the United States is entitled to exercise.''
-- caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/02.html#1
Nope, no right to keep and bear arms as a citizen of the United states.