The 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law... It doesn't say States shall make no law. The Founders were not idiots and they knew the meaning of the words they used and they chose and used them very carefully with much debate of the smallest details.
I've mentioned it before but have not had time or context to really delve into the question of incorporation. Unfortunately, I spent too much time playing computer games tonight and don't have time now, nearly midnight, to fully address the issue. Perhaps tomorrow.
For now, the short version. The 1st Amendment was very explicitly aimed at the Federal Government and very intentionally not at the States. The 2nd Amendment, on the other hand, is very clearly aimed at the States and the Federal Government. Since there's no such thing as a federal militia, inclusion of the militia in the discussion proves that the protections of the 2nd Amendment were intended to apply absolutely - to state and federal government.
The Supreme Court has twisted the 14th Amendment Due Process clause to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights but the entire concept of selective incorporation is asinine. If there was any such intent in the 14th Amendment then it would certainly have to apply to all of the Amendments and to every other limit on the Federal government that is in the Constitution. But we know that it was never the intention of the Founders.
But let's say that the 1st Amendment is incorporated.... What does the 1st Amendment say? Congress shall make no law.... So, Federal Government: Congress shall make no law... States of the Union: Congress shall make no law...... ok.. it's incorporated. Congress shall make no law.
The Founders never felt there was a need to protect those rights from the States - the States were sovereign and had their own Constitutions. The Constitution of the United States was to form a union of those sovereign States. The State constitutions already, for the most part, had those protections. Some things, though, were important enough to the new nation that they felt it had to be explicitly included; thus the Bill of Rights.
But you can't twist the word "Congress" into "State Legislatures" through the 14th Amendment. That's not incorporation; that's changing the words and the meaning. Nothing in the Constitution could ever be construed to empower the Supreme Court to apply powers or limits of Federal Government onto the States. And especially to do so selectively as though they, alone, can decide what the States can and cannot do.
But, luckily for us, the 2nd Amendment, on the other hand, never required incorporation. Neither did the rest. Incorporation as a concept didn't come around until the 1920s and expanded into the 1930s all the way into the 1960s - and still the Court pretended that the 2nd didn't apply to the States until McDonald in 2010.
From the day the Bill of Rights was ratified, no one ever considered that the 5th Amendment only applied to the Federal Government. The 5th Amendment doesn't say "Congress" or "the Federal Government".
Since there was no standing army at the time the Bill of Rights was written, how could one interpret the 3rd Amendment to mean that only the Federal Government could not quarter soldiers in the homes of civilians? All soldiers were State soldiers - and they could not be quartered in the homes of civilians in times of peace. They only became psuedo-Federal soldiers in time of war and then they could be quartered in the homes of civilians - so the 3rd could never apply to anything except the States.
Incorporation is the biggest usurpation of authority the Court has ever taken - greater even than the role of constitutional review of legislative acts.
Well, I guess I gave the long version anyway. Too important of a topic and one I am clearly passionate about.