Here is 'states rights' idiocy.
Check out Barron v Baltimore in my previous post - in a decision from John Marshall's court in 1833 expressly ruling that the Bill of Rights do not apply to the states.
Barron v Baltimore is notorious as a questionable ruling by a senile Marshall trying to 'save the union'.
The erroneous Barron decision was nullified by the ratification of the 14th; -- even though it was already, in effect null & void, - as it ignored the supremacy clause of Article VI.
Sure, walk around Chicago or New York with a gun and let's see if Barron v Baltimore is null and void.
You have a problem of using the word "is" when "should be" is the appropriate choice.
Here are the facts:
(1) Barron v Baltimore is not null and void.
(2) Marshall was not "trying to save the union" in Barron v Baltimore - maybe you should read up on the case.
(3) The 14th amendment does not overturn Barron v Baltimore but instead has given the SCOTUS another route to apply the Bill of Rights to the states
(4) The SCOTUS has had 175 years to overturn Barron v Baltimore and has repeatedly refused to do so, even after the passage of the 14th amendment (they chose incorporation instead via the 14th instead). If the Supremacy clause really means what you think it does then why hasn't any SCOTUS in 175 years realized that?
(5) The 2nd amendment currently does not apply to the states.
You can be as unhappy with those facts all you want, but you need to learn to accept reality before you can prepare yourself to try and change it.
One approach that I listed out earlier is that maybe the SCOTUS can be convinced that the Bill of Rights have always applied to the states and that Barron v Baltimore should be overturned. Just saying that it is overturned or 'null and void' doesn't cut it - we actually have to get the SCOTUS to do it.