When we look at a case like Heller, we tend to believe that incorporation is a winning proposition for us, especially since we have been raised to believe that the Bill of Rights protects us from all levels of government, when in fact it was intended only to protect us from federal laws.
After doing a little reading, though, I've been thinking about the 14th and its potential dangers. Basically, it's a violation of federalism, and it places lots of power over the states in the hands of federal judges, particularly SCOTUS. So 9 people get to pick what rights you have and what ones you don't. Is that really the way you think it's best to protect your rights?
Federalism means divided powers, so that power is spread over a greater number of people. This leads to a patchwork of laws, of course, which is the downside. But concentration of power means that all it takes is a small handful of wrongheads to get control and we all lose (like we did when FDR stacked the court).
The idea that you can protect liberty by giving all the power to one or a few "shining knights"* and then hope they don't turn on you or get sacked in the next election does not sound like a very stable system for protecting our rights to me.
*This is the thinking behnd those who continually berate us to be afraid of what Obama might do and why we have to panic if he wins.