New Yorker magazine has an interesting article about history of 2nd amendment, NRA and gun control

[safeinOhio]

33. Right wingers push lots of pro-rights

issues that have little to do with the Constitution or what the Founding Fathers meant. The 2nd does state "the people", not every person. Now we have people thinking that it is a civil right. Then all this gets even better when the same right-wing scholars push the 1st Amendment to equate money with speech. So, now, by the same logic, Foreign countries have a 1st Amendment Right to donate large sums of money into American politics. Have yet to hear our local neo-civil rights experts on the 2nd push for this extension of the 1st. It's only a matter of time.
Then the message becomes individual restrictions on the possession of handguns in public is a restriction on minorities, meaning urban Black folks. The same people that push this idea bemoan the fact that those same minorities elect urban mayors, that follow their constituents wishes to reduce the number of handguns on the streets of their own cities. They are all for civil rights, except when it comes to self governance of minorities. They are all for the right of self defense, just not self governance. Can't have it both ways. If you think Scalia and company are the true defenders of the 2nd, you just about have to agree with them on the 1st.
I'm more in favor of state and local restrictions. What works in Bum Fuck Texas, may not be appropriate or work in NY city or other large, high density urban areas.
I'm more willing to look at gun rights and the Second Amendment as varying shades of gray, not black and white. The zealots on both sides seem to have problems with the nuance of laws and rights.