You have it exactly right. Why don't you help me out a bit with these people who think otherwise. BTW, what I think he's saying about inc. is that once the door was opened, merely by mentioning a right, the sly and the tricky would be given leverage to take that right. It's NOT what was intended, but it's what happened. The 2nd amend is a FAB case in point. Merely mention a right, and you give the scum sucking filth pig dog whore democrats the leverage to say, "See! If you're in a militia, you can have a gun, but only if you're in the militia."
It is true that incorporation protects a right from infringement by the states. Some look at this as a good thing and, on the surface, appears to be so.
But, two things. One, the Founding Fathers had the opportunity to "incorporate" the BOR when the were drafting the amendments. It was rejected.
Two, when an amendment is incorporated, the interpretation of that amendment is done by the USSC, and that interpretation then applies to all the states.
For example, prior to the incorporation of the 1st amendment, each state, by their individual state constitutions, defined the speech that they would protect -- federalism in action. But once the 1st amendment was incorporated, the USSC defined speech -- and that's why all state must allow nude dancing as "protected speech".
THAT'S where the problem lies. That's why we're so lucky that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated. Can you imagine the USSC defining "arms", or "bear" or "keep"? They might, for example, define "arms" as rifles only, or "bear arms" as not concealed, or "keep" as in a state armory. That interpretation would then apply to each and every state equally.