Indeed, I agree - I think the chances of incorporation under PorI is less than you, but it exists.
This is the part that has me truly on the fence - they chose to hear this for a reason. Is it simply to incorporate the 2nd or is it because doing so under PorI would essentially become a vehicle to overturn the previous Slaughter House ruling (something which, in my simple mind, needs to be done)?We have a few constitutional originialist justices on SCOTUS right now, so maybe, just maybe...
I'll be happy either way, and while I suspect the line of questioning was more 'thinking aloud at the possibilities' than a signal that incorporation was happening under PorI, that would indeed be a massive victory in the fight for our God-given rights.