[Rule of Law]

Does the 2'nd? Which of the first ten amendments legitimately applies to the states, if any?

None. But most states have similar guarantees in their constitutions. Not all. For instance, California does not have protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

[general_re]

Then you must necessarily dispute the validity of the 14'th amendment, which was, as steve-b points out, clearly intended to bind states to the Bill of Rights. Why do you feel the 14'th amendment is invalid?

For instance, California does not have protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you feel this is a good thing? IOW, you must then argue that, although it would be wrong and unconstitutional for the federal government to confiscate all firearms from citizens, it is proper and just that the state of California does so. Why is it proper and just that rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution can be abrogated by the states at will?

What is the point of having a "right" to keep and bear arms if it can be revoked by the states? If such a thing is revocable, does it make sense to even call it a "right"?