Depending on their state constitutions, the states were free to establish a state religion (and some did), restrict the press, search without a warrant, regulate guns, etc. And they did these things.
After the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868, the U.S. Supreme Court starting applying some of the Bill of Rights to the states in a process known as "incorporation". It wasn't until 1925, for example, that "Freedom of Speech" was applied to the states. "Freedom of the Press" followed in 1931. "Freedom of Assembly" in 1937. "Separation of Church and State" in 1947. "No Unreasonable Search" in 1949. And so on.
I have court cases which document each "incorporation". The second amendment has yet to be incorporated. The second amendment, today, only protects us from federal laws, federal infringement. States are guided by their state constitutions.
Didn't you ever wonder how some states allowed concealed carry and others didn't? If the second amendment applied to the states, that would be unconstitutional.
Now, since this is the first time we've corresponded, I've been nice. If you're going to respond with something along the lines of, "The states are violating the constitution ... they're infringing on our constitutional rights ... the Supreme Court is in collusion with the states ..." and other such unsupported garbage, I think we can just call it a day.
You may have a minimal knowledge of legislative and legal history, but your comprehension of basic constitutional law is utterly incorrect.
Again, what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" are you having problems with?
Read the First Amendment. It clearly says "Congress shall make no law...". Therefore, you argument that the First Amendment applies only to the federal government and not to the states themselves might be considered valid.
But such an argument is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.
Take a look at the Second Amendment. Go ahead and actually read it. Does it say "Congress shall"? Does it say "except for"?
No. It does not.
It clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
While the First Amendment clearly states that it applies only to congress, the Second Amendment clearly states that it applies in general and in total. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. At all. By anyone. The power to infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms is prohibited by the constitution to the states (as outlined in the Tenth Amendment). They cannot legally touch it (granted, they have, but illegally and unconstitutionally).
As I said above, your bogus argument that the Second Amendment has not been "incorporated" is invalid (and absurd). Such might have been necessary for the First Amendment, because it does specifically just restrict Congress. It does not apply to the Second Amendment. The "shall not be infringed" clause by itself is more than enough to show that it is "incorporated" (to use your invalid terminology) a priori.
The Tenth Amendment clearly states that some powers are denied the states by the Constitution. If, as you incorrectly postulate, the Amendments and articles of the Constitution need to be "incorporated" before they are imposed on the states, then why was the Tenth Amendment ever written? Why does it mention that the Constitution denies the states certain powers if those restrictions need to be "incorporated" first?
The Second Amendment specifically denies anyone, including the states, the power to infringe on the individual's right to keep and bear arms.
Gun control is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All gun control. You may not like it. It may conflict with the legal fantasy you live in (along with so many others, unfortunately), but it is true.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Didn't you ever wonder how some states allowed concealed carry and others didn't? If the second amendment applied to the states, that would be unconstitutional.
Oh Puh-Freaking-Leaze! What planet are you living on? Surely you are not that naive?
These laws ARE unconstitutional! They just haven't been challenged in the Supreme Court yet. Why? Well, thanks to liberal useful idiots and their evil masters, we have not yet seen a Supreme Court in recent years since all this unconstitutional crap began that gun owners are sufficiently confident would make the right decision (just look at their unconstitutional Kelo ruling). Bringing such a case before the court is extremely risky because there is a chance that the court might simply strip away the Second Amendment entirely (particularly if we get more democrat appointees on the bench or pseudo-conservatives who only every have to pass the "Roe v. Wade" litmus test). We need a SOLID pro Second Amendment majority on the court. That's why Bush was elected, and it's something I have yet to see him actually deliver.