That is, you do not believe that the Second Amendment, or any amendment, should be incorporated.
Also, you do not believe that the right to keep and bear arms is among those "privileges and immunities" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the use of that phrase in one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in our country's history.
We have accomplished a great deal because we can see quite plainly that we differ on these two points.
You further wrote: "So, if Congress wished, they could pass a law banning concealed carry and it would then apply to every state. You want that?"
I fail to see the logic in claiming that applying the Second Amendment to the states will provide the Congress of the United States with additional power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Whatever the Second Amendment means, it already limits the power of the federal government. Applying the Second Amendment to the states would not change in any way the constraints on Congress.
Perhaps you can provide an example of any incorporated "right" resulting in a reduction of Congress' limitations regarding that right.
Why do you suppose the Dred Scott decision mentioned the right to carry arms along with the right to freely travel? And yet you would claim that one is basic and fundamental and the other is not? What level of significance do you attach to the right to keep and bear arms? Is this not the mechanism by which oppressed people can abolish tyrannical governments? Just what do you believe the Second Amendment means?
While I certainly agree with you that liberals will twist any legal situation to suit their own ends, I do not fear incorporation of the Second Amendment.
There is no reason to fear incorporation of the 2nd Amendment whatsoever. The arms protected by the the Amendment are those suitable for the mission of the militia as defined in Article 1 Section 8 "execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Otherwise, restrictive state laws could disarm the people so that they could not be called into service by the Congress. That puts citizens on an equal footing with standing armies - in today's parlance, it protects the right of citizens (at a minimum) to own machine guns. When hand held lasers are standard weapons for soldiers fighting invaders, it will protect them too.
The decision was proposing a hypothetical -- that IF the slave was a "Citizen of the state", he would have these privileges and immunities. This was 13 years before the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment discusses privileges and immunities of a "citizen of the United States".
Two different privileges and immunities. Two different types of citizens. The following outlines the privileges and immunities of a "citizen of the United States:
"Although the Court has expressed a reluctance to attempt a definitive enumeration of those privileges and immunities of United States citizens which are protected against state encroachment, it nevertheless felt obliged in the Slaughter-House Cases ''to suggest some which owe their existence to the Federal Government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.''
"Among those which it then identified were the right of access to the seat of Government and to the seaports, subtreasuries, land officers, and courts of justice in the several States, the right to demand protection of the Federal Government on the high seas or abroad, the right of assembly, the privilege of habeas corpus, the right to use the navigable waters of the United States, and rights secured by treaty. In Twining v. New Jersey, the Court recognized ''among the rights and privileges'' of national citizenship the right to pass freely from State to State, the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances, the right to vote for national officers, the right to enter public lands, the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshal, and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws. Earlier, in a decision not mentioned in Twining, the Court had also acknowledged that the carrying on of interstate commerce is ''a right which every citizen of the United States is entitled to exercise.''
"Perhaps you can provide an example of any incorporated "right" resulting in a reduction of Congress' limitations regarding that right."
Using Congressional laws to make my point is probably not the best way to illustrate the problems of incorporation, though CFR comes close.
A better way is simply to focus on the USSC. Prior to the incorporation of the first amendment in 1925, each state defined and protected speech. Each state was different.
After incorporation, now the USSC defines speech. They've said nude dancing is protected speech. That interpretation now applies to laws in all 50 states. Ditto the court's decisions on abortion, sodomy, CFR, eminent domain, church/state issues, etc.
If the second amendment was incorporated, and if a states' concealed carry law was challenged, a liberal USSC could say the second amendment doesn't protect concealed carry (as found in Nunn v State), and that decision would apply to all 50 states. A liberal USSC could interpret "arms" to exclude handguns.
That's why I do not believe that the Second Amendment, or any amendment, should be incorporated. I also don't believe it was the intent of the 14th amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights, either.