An ... inventive approach
(via Prof. Joe Olson). Prof. Jim Chen has a brief PowerPoint on an article on which he's working (see works in progress, bottom of his page). It appears to argue that the 14th Amendment repealed the Second rather than incorporating it. Argument is that the 14th, by including clauses punishing former Confederates, outmoded the right to revolution which, he argues, is at the heart of the Second Amendment.
You have to understand that legal scholars love to search for a new argument, and that in some areas of legal scholarship you get to the level reached by art over the last century, where the core is not so much substance as showing off a new style. It's not so much "here is a detailed portrait from which you can gather, not only what the man looked like, but also read much of his personality," as it is "hey, I can depict a field of flowers with dots of light," or even "admire these vertical strips of color." Here, it becomes "look at how I can play with logic and wording and history" rather than "here is what the wording or history indicates."
The "right of revolution" was always a difficult logical concept. At its core ... if you succeed, you've exercised a right, and are a founding father. If you fail, you're a traitor. Hmm.. sort of like internal gun group politics. The problem with Prof. Chen's argument is that the Second isn't directly over revolution. Constitutional rights are about *what risks* we are willing to take to secure freedom. At some level, freedom of expression, association and arms, are about what risks the Framers thought acceptable, and necessary, to secure a free republic.