The states DELEGATED a portion of their powers to the federal government. They did not use the Bill of Rights as a secret modification of their state constitutions, the dishonest and irrational rantings of Constitution haters such as yourself notwithstanding.
If you agree with previous ACTIVIST and racist Courts that certain classes of people shouldn't have those Rights protected, then that is a personal failing. Not a Constitutional one...
We've been over all of this before. Do we REALLY need to do it again? You were wrong then and it doesn't look like anything has changed since.
At the time the Bill of Rights was incorporated by a constitutional convention, Article VI of the Constition was already in effect. Thus, the states knew that anything incorporated into the Constitution via amendment would also be binding on the states unless the language of the article clearly identified it as a restriction on the federal government. Apparently the SCOTUS decision you have been citing chose to ignore this fact.
Article 11 of the bill of rights (9th amendment) asserted that rights not enumerated were not denied or disparaged, and were retained by the people (not by the states but by the people).
Article 12 of the bill of rights (10th amendment) reserves to the states and the people any powers not granted to the federal government AND not denied to the states by the constitution.
Article 3 of the bill of rights (1st amendment) prohibits Congress from passing laws respecting religion, restricting speech, restricting freedom of the press and of assembly, etc. (If the intent of the overall bill of rights was entirely to limit the powers of the central government with no consideration for asserting basic rights that could not be infringed by any level of government, then why would this article specifically say Congress but not others?) Article 4 (2nd amendment) asserts the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. When this article was ratified it became a part of the Constitution. As such, it is the supreme law of the land (the provisions of any state constitution to the contrary notwithstanding). "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed". Since the states did not choose to word this article in a way that reserved to themselves the power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any inference that the framers intended this restriction to be a restriction only on the federal government ignores the clear meaning of the words of both the amenement and the rest of the constitution. The Supreme Court decision in 1833 (it seems there were some other decisions by SCOTUS around that time that aren't widely considered very good stare decisis anymore if I recall correctly) chose to ignore this.