The issue is whether those that passed and ratified the Biil of Rights believed they were making them applicable against the states. It is is irrefutable that, in 1792, no one believed that the Bill of Rights was binding on the states...other than a couple of posters on FR, I don't know anyone (or any case) that has ever claimed that. One the biggest objections that some of the Framers had to adding a Bill of Rights was that, because the new federal government would have very few powers, the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because it would be prohibiting the federal government from doing things it has no power to do anyway.
Some lawyers tried to argue that the Bill of Rights was applicable to that states a few times but that was always clearly rejected by the Courts...most notably by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Barron v. Baltimore.
While most of the Founders believed in a natural rights theory, the vast majority believed the identification of those rights and the extent of those rights would be left to the states themselves to decide. Moreover, every state had its own bill of rights...which served as a model for Madison when he drafted the Bill of Rights to the federal Constitution. It is important to remember that it was the Anti-Federalists who were pushing for the Bill of Rights to be added. Obviously, the Anti-Federalists who were strong states rights advocates and generally feared the federal government they were creating in the Constitution would never have intended to make their states' laws subject to that Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights is incorporated against the state by the 14th Amendment...but even that claim was rejected by the Courts for 79 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment....for good reason. The argument is that the phrase..."no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law" thereby incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states. It that doesn't seem to make sense to you...that's because it doesn't
Moreover, you would think that, because the basis of incorporation is such a cryptic phrase (I've always wondered why, if those who ratified the 14th Amendment really intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights...why didn't they just say so? Why be so cryptic? Were they just hoping that someday, a Court would figure it out?), there should be some strong clear evidence that the ratifiers really intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states. But, in fact, there is almost a total lack of evidence and much evidence to the contrary
Incorporation is a fiction
Er... yeah. Right.
"[To establish republican government, it is necessary to] effect a constitution in which the will of the nation shall have an organized control over the actions of its government, and its citizens a regular protection against its oppressions." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1816. ME 19:240
"It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses." --Thomas Jefferson to Noah Webster, 1790. ME 8:112
Finally...
So far is it from being true, that a bill of rights is less necessary in the general Constitution than in those of the States, the contrary is evidently the fact. This system, if it is possible for the people of America to accede to it, will be an original compact; and being the last wilt, in the nature of things, vacate every former agreement inconsistent with it. For it being a plan of government received and ratified by the whole people, all other forms which are in existence at the time of its adoption, must yield to it. This is expressed in positive and unequivocal terms in the sixth article: "That this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution, or laws of any State, to the contrary notwithstanding."
"The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States, and of the several States, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution."
It is therefore not only necessarily implied thereby, but positively expressed, that the different State Constitutions are repealed and entirely done away, so far as they are inconsistent with this, with the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof, or with treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States. Of what avail will the Constitutions of the respective States be to preserve the rights of its citizens? Should they be pled, the answer would be, the Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, is the supreme law, and all legislatures and judicial officers, whether of the General or State governments, are bound by oath to support it. No privilege, reserved by the bills of rights, or secured by the State governments, can limit the power granted by this, or restrain any laws made in pursuance of it. It stands, therefore, on its own bottom, and must receive a construction by itself, without any reference to any other. And hence it was of the highest importance, that the most precise and express declarations and reservations of rights should have been made.
This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but alt treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the Constitutions of all the States. The power to make treaties, is vested in the president, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the senate. I do not find any limitation or restriction to the exercise of this power. The most important article in any Constitution may therefore be repealed, even without a legislative act. Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought.
-Brutus. Antifederalist #84
So yeah... despite your buying into the 20th century Big Lie of incorperation due to the FedGov needing to restate the above sentiments in the 1th Amendment, does your side of the argument no service. We have inalienable Rights. As humans. As US citizens. No one, not State and certainly not Local, have the power to strip us of those basic Rights.
Arguing otherwise only puts you on the side of the tyrants and dictator wanna-be's currently trying to destroy this country from the inside out.