OTOH, I am confused as to why you chose that title for this thread.
I have been considering starting a militia in my neighborhood. I assume you remember the definition of "militia" that I would be using: http://www.answers.com/topic/militia
In this case, "militia" would mean basically a body of well-trained citizens banded together to protect and support a neighborhood, district, city, county, or State. In practice, it would amount to a neighborhood watch with non-military functions including beautification, picking up and disposing properly of litter, watching a neighbor's house while they're on vacation, etc.
So, why "Down with the militias!"?

So, should the Second Amendment apply to the States (i.e. to protect an individual from a state regulation)?   

cimics axed:

So, should the Second Amendment apply to the States (i.e. to protect an individual from a state regulation)?

It is my opinion that the Second is there so that the citizens can know they have the Founding Father's recognition of their (the citizens') right to overthrow a repressive government, if that was what you were asking. 

Heretic (apparently) axed:
 
57% of Americans want severe restrictions or bans?

Where did that stat come from? Though they have the right to express whatever stupid opinion they want to, they don't have the Constitutional power to act on that particular desire to restrict or ban any firearms, since the RKBA is protected under the Constitution, which is the Law of the Land.

"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." 
Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 
16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

cimics said:

I don't think this really gets at my question.  My question is a question of federalism.  Before the 14th Amendment, the conventional wisdom was that the first ten amendments to the Constitution applied only to the national government. 

SJ's position in the past has been that the 14th didn't change that.  If he believes that, then the logical conclusion, even if his view of the 2nd is correct, would be that only the national government is barred from infringing on the right to bear arms.   States have their own constitutions and can certainly protect the right to bear arms, but they need not do so, or may do so differently.

I'd agree, somewhat. The idea with Federalism was that the citizens could vote with their feet. However, no right secured by the Constitution can be abridged by any State.

As I said:
"When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

For example, in Texas:

Quote