"Not the way it is done", you say. I think you mean "Not the way it is being done." If you wish to maintain that it is acceptable for the Supreme Court of the United States to avoid its responsibility to "incorporate" the Second Amendment for over a century, then you have a much lower expectation for the impact of amending the Constitution than I.
One could write a Supreme Court decision virtually identical to Gitlow and from the same date, concerning a state law prohibiting bayonet lugs. And it would be perfectly reasonable for the Supreme Court to have "assumed" that the liberty of bearing arms is "protected" by the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court would then need to decide whether prohibition of bayonet lugs is so necessary to the survival of government that a state should be allowed to deprive its citizens of that liberty.
How do YOU justify the situation we now find ourselves in. The Supreme Court allows the federal government to outlaw some bayonet lugs despite the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court allows states to outlaw bayonet lugs despite the Fourteenth Amendment.
Hey, why not? YOU think it's perfectly acceptable for the USSC to incorporate the first amendment which specifically says, "Congress shall make no law ...". Fine with you that the USSC ignores the word "Congress" and makes the law applicable to the states.
"The Supreme Court allows the federal government to outlaw some bayonet lugs despite the Second Amendment"
That's not true and you know why. How can you type these things when you know they're not true, and you know that I know they're not true? Are you trying to influence the casual observer here? What, really, is your reason for doing this?