Not exactly an argument to warm the cockles of any human being's heart who found himself under the incumbency of das Fuehrerprinzip. At some point you have to say, "they're deliberately getting it wrong."
....your running theme being that the decisions were made by know-nothing jerks.
Worse. They know what they're doing: disenfranchising the People and elevating the Government (themselves) to sovereignty.
Perhaps if you had a truer picture ....
Here we go again with the law degree. I've read the holding in Miller and the opinion in Presser. I took a whack at reading Cruikshank and stopped reading when I decided they were practicing to deceive, by ignoring 14A and proceeding as if it and its "privileges and immunities" clause did not exist, in order to throw their decision in favor of the Klan. If they meant to say that 14A was null and void because improperly ratified, they should have said so. Otherwise, the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Force Acts were good law (as good as anything could be, with so many citizens off the rolls and original intent dead on the ground side-by-side with the Tenth Amendment), and SCOTUS had a duty to uphold them in the face of thuggery and nightriding. I finally decided that Cruikshank was actually the juridical implementation -- the Court following elections -- of the Tilden-Hayes election and its Devil's bargain.
(I defy anyone to read Cruikshank without falling asleep, or to say that it wasn't a cloud of squid ink written not to elucidate, but to obscure.)
I've seen the relevant law, and the holdings of the Court are uniformly bad, and traceable to a determination to abolish popular sovereignty and especially the means of its preservation.
Better we go with feelings and emotion? I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court is going to.
"Cruikshank and stopped reading when I decided they were practicing to deceive, by ignoring 14A"
It would be another 50 years before activist courts started "incorporating" the BOR under the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
Specific "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" were defined two years prior to Cruikshank by the Slaughterhouse Cases -- they didn't include the RKBA.
You have arrived at the only rational conclusion possible, given the totality of the arguments presented. -- "They are [the statist/socialists] deliberately getting it [our Constitution] wrong."