I suppose they are anti-Lincoln and the XIVth. There is a certain consistency to such views. But there is a difference between undoing the New Deal and/or the Great Society and undoing the Civil War. The former are modern perversions of our Constitution. Lincoln reshaped the nation for better or worse at a unique time and he's got the amendment to make it stick.
When the Constitution was ratified, some states had constitutional provisions which protected the right to keep and bear arms, but that they explicitly authorized restriction on the carriage of concealed weapons. I know nothing that would suggest the Constitution was meant to overrule those provisions.
That being said, I would interpret the Constituion as requiring that states either allow all free people to carry concealed firearms, or allow people to carry ready-to-fire weapons unconcealed without legal harassment. Many states, of course, do neither.
Or for that matter any of our BOR's, - as supposedly they only apply to the federal government.
Well, the First Amendment, by its own language, is only a restriction on the federal government. It was certainly recognized that there were needs for certain restrictions on free speech and press rights (e.g. laws against slander, libel, etc.) but such laws would properly fall within state jurisdiction. Also, IIRC, some states did have established religious institutions when the Constitution was ratified; I see no reason to believe it was supposed to eliminate those.