If we're going to debate the 2A then why not debate 1A,3A,4A,5A,6A, etc?
If one right can be violated and argued against over emotion, and claimed safety, then how are the rest of them safe?
If he is not forced to testify against himself then he will go free! If you've done nothing wrong then you can confess to all your crimes.
If you don't like housing troops (military/police etc) then you must hate freedom. Why not force everyone to house troops to save federal money.
We do, just never at the same time and place.
There has been an artificial schism erected in America between people who don't like stop-and-frisk 4A violations and guys who don't like blatant 2A violations. Often they are not the same people, and people in positions of influence (media, politicians, etc) like to portray people who support one side or the other as opposed to the other.
Partially due to demographics; the guys subject to stop-and-frisk tend to not be gun owners. That's just one example, but not everyone gets hassled for exercising the Constitutionally recognized rights.
Those that do support all of them belong to a dangerous subgroup known as libertarians, or worse, Constitutionalists (not to be confused with the Constitutionalist Party.)
I find it a tragedy that the ACLA and SAF (or even the NRA, but they are more of a Republican lobby/fundraiser group than a 2A group in my opinion) are usually on the same team, though there have been a number of suits where they have been (the suit against NCRL library system for blocking gun-related websites, when DC police did house-to-house searches "just to make sure your home is safe," ect.
But given America today, a lot of people don't care about rights if their own are not being violated. I'm pigeonholing here, but a lot of gun owners don't give a crap that black and puertorican kids are getting harassed daily, and a lot of non gun owners don't give a crap that gun owners are having their rights chiseled away.