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.
Sure they have.
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."
-- U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
"But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the (second - rp) amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."
-- PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
"In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the State of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest without warrant of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the Second and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the Federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."
-- Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894)
The lower federal courts have ruled similarly:
"Since we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states, we need not consider the scope of its guarantee of the right to bear arms. There (U.S. v. Miller) the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia. Because the second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second amendment."
-- Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982)
The Ninth Circuit has ruled FIVE TIMES that the second amendment does not create a fundamental individual right, and also that it is not a restriction on state laws because the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, 965 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 998 (9th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 519 U. S. 912 (1996); San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F. 3d 11121 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Mack, 164 F.3d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1999); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002).
Unless you have more than capital letters and bold type to support your views, don't bother responding. I have no intention of playing "Yes it does! No it doesn't!" games with you. Put up or shut up.