The explicitly stated context of the Bill of Rights (as explained in the Preamble thereto) makes it obvious to anyone who knows how to read, that it's specific to the federal government.
I read good, and neither the preambles context, nor it's actual words, make your conclusion in any way 'obvious'.
In fact, that preamble states clearly:
-- "all or any of the Articles, when ratified" -- will be "part of said Constitution".
-- A Constitution that specifically says in Art VI it is the "Law of the Land". -- The "Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding".
You've yet to say how the claim is erroneous.
The bold sentences above 'say' that very clearly, mr nitpicker.
The fact that something is part of the Constitution doesn't mean it applies to the states, as you yourself have acknowledged in regard to Section 9.
You're dreaming about what I "acknowledged".
-- You not only ignore facts that are inconvenient - you ignore everyones words when you find them inconvenient. -- Your generic, nitpicking complaints are becoming a joke on FR. Find some new lines.
"Section 9 is specific to Congress, Section 10 to States."
Likewise I said that the Bill of Rights is specific to the federal government, and you "rebutted" by saying that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. But so is Section 9. If the fact that it's part of the Constitution contradicts my statement, then it contradicts yours equally.
Have fun digging yourself out of that hole.