The cynical Tribe 2nd Amendment gambit
Lawrence Tribe (and his student Barack Obama) came to favor viewing the 2nd Amendment as a personal right, reasoning that that would bring the right wing to a rights perspective and make all rights stronger or more popular or some damn thing.
(Note the reliance on the nonexistent class of well-intentioned and intellectually honest RWers. Sound familiar?)
Instead, it put something that must be regulated strictly in the same constitutional category as free speech!
Twenty years from now, it will be, "We have strict limits on personal rights like gun ownership so obviously rights are subject to strict regulation, and banning the following publications is just common sense." "Why shouldn't there be mental health screening to watch porn?" "Religions need to be screened by government for potentially violent doctrine." etc..
The range of what we do vis-a-vis personal constitutional rights now includes criminal background checks. Before the 2nd was made a personal right that was not the case.
I consider the 2nd Amendment as a Bill of Rights anomaly, being a state right secured against the federal government which a state may extend to a personal right for its citizenry if it wishes to. Or not. (The "well regulated" is plainly a State right and responsibility.)
One can argue with my interpretation (many would) but at least it doesn't lead to the degradation of all other rights.
