States (actually the citizens of the states) decide which of these natural rights they will protect and to what extent.
Simply not true. Both Article VI & the 14th specifically address this issue, making clear that States are bound to support the US Constitution and the individuals rights protected therein.
In Chicago, you have a right to defend yourself, but not with a gun.
-- how is it possible that some states allow concealed carry and some don't?
How is it possible that some cities actually ban the ownership of handguns?
By ignoring the clear words of the Constitution, combined with the failure of our President, Congress, and Courts to insist that they cease such prohibitions. --- The 'majority will' is operating to infringe on our RKBA's, urged on by 'democratic' folks like you.
What happened to Equal Protection and Due Process?
(Answer: The second amendment doesn't apply to the states, only the federal government. Gasp!)
Yes robby [gasp], we here at FR are no longer shocked at your refusal to support the Constitutions 2nd Amendment as the Law of the Land.
Make you proud?
What does the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution have to do with the City of Chicago's gun laws? Tell me specifically how it applies.
All the officials in Chicago are sworn to support the US Constitution [as amended]; "notwithstanding" any State [or local] laws "to the Contrary'.
Then tell me why Chicago's gun laws, and New York's, and LA's have NEVER even been challenged as a violation of the second amendment. NEVER.
Because the USSC, and the Fed Circuit Courts, refuse to hear cases that are challenged on 2nd Amendment grounds.
You've been told this before, and NEVER manage to refute that clear fact.
It puzzles me why all you fellas think that this Republic can long endure if we allow States to ignore & prohibit our RKBA's.. Can you explain?
I would bother but I've already gone through this. See the links I have provided. It is very clear the intent of the 14th Amendment was not meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights. As late as 1925 the Supreme Court ruled exactly that on the First Amendment. The Fifth was not incorporated until 1897. Do a quick search on 14th and incorporation theory.
I think that it SHOULD be applicable against the states but it's a simple fact that it's (at least yet) not. The entire history of the BoR and the entire case law (starting in 1830) shows that the BoR originally limited only the federal government. Now after the adoption of the XIV Amendment the SCOTUS chose the "selective incorporation" doctrine rather than the "complete incorporation" and gradually extended most of the BoR provisions to the states. As I already said many times it did not extend some provisions of the BoR, like f.ex. the RKBA, but it also did not extend the right to unanimous jury verdicts. I believe that in order to avoid the whole XIV Amendment chutzpah (especially post-WW II when the SCOTUS changed its mind many times on what should extend to the states and what not, again compare f.ex. Bute v. Illinois - there is no right to counsel, and Gideon v. Wainwright - there is a right to counsel, or Wolf v. Colorado - no exclusionary rule, with Mapp v. Ohio) the Congress should simply pass a new Constitutional Amendment which would declare that the entire Bill of Rights is now extended to the states (OTOH some states may not want to ratify it...).