I haven’t gotten deep into this yet, but judging by what I’ve read so far about the character of the court, I think the NRA did the best that they could do. Eight to one odds are a tough obstacle to overcome.
You might say idealism and naiveté resulted in the flawed sinking ship analogy. It leaves out a group judges using extraconstitutional ideology combined with bad precedent as cover: to prevent anyone from getting near the "big hole". Whatever happened to the idea of impartial judges basing decisions on the letter of the Constitution, or was it just another dream? Likewise, the idea that the law should be logically consistent within itself is a notion swept away by a twisted pragmatism based on a perceived need for regulation and needs-tested rights.
It still irritates me that that NRA helped lay another layer to the bad precedent barrier to full incorporation, but I really don’t think it could be helped. They’ll still get my money. I’m just not as happy giving it.
Currently and sadly, the only tactic with any chance of success would be "Selective incorporation to a goal" (to bastardize BF Skinner a bit) ? It can even be called "operant petitioning" ?
Bad pun better than bad analogy? Hope so … gotta find a way to laugh, right?