Interesting. Here's my theory (and don't take this as a trap or an attack. I appreciate the discussion and respect your positions):

People who are willing to ignore the intent of the 14th Amendment to favor their cause (regardless of the drafter's intent to use at as a vehicle to protect blacks as they moved from slavery), are apt to hone in on what they believe the framer's intent to be when applying the second amendment. In other words, broad on what they want, narrow on what they don't.

But so you see I am not left bashing, my theory also applies to the right. Many people seem to be textualists when holding a right ideology until it comes time to review the 14th Amendment or the 1st Amendment. It says expressly, you have the right to free speech. Simply looking at the text, obscenity would be protected, yes?

Do we all do this? Do we all put on different judicial theories hats to meet our underlying beliefs?

Are we truly legally disciplined or in the end are we all just "end result" interpreters?

I worry at times that I am guilty of this.

(For the record, I disagree with your position on the 2nd Amendment, but that wasn't the point of my experiment. Nor, was the purpose to "trip you up" or insult you in any way. I hope you take in the nature it was intended: intellectual curiosity).