Well, it could be argued that, although I wouldn't expect such an argument would prevail.
My point to pabiance (without really commenting on the merits of the case), was that McDonald is rooted in some very complicated, and unquestionably controversial and contentious issue of Constitutional Law - the incorporation doctrine.
I was also highlighting, just as a point of interest, is that liberal/conservative has somewhat flip-flopped on this matter in the last several decades, precisely because of the 2nd Amendment - it's not a value judgment, just an observation.
I don’t think McDonald has to be rooted in incorporation. Gura is giving the Supreme Court the option of overturning Slaughterhouse (his brief is directed at least partially at this) as an alternative. This would eliminate the necessity of the doctrine of incorporation as is currently applied, as it would incorporate all of the BOR. This would fit with the intent at the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment, and would generally clean up Constitutional law.
When addressing fundamentals such as the Constitution, a POV which leads to very complicated, and unquestionably controversial and contentious issues is usually wrong. In this case, "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" rather makes the whole "incorporation" question a no-brainer; it was the refusal to concede the obvious that led to the Civil War and the 14th "it means what it says" Amendment. Likewise "...shall not be infringed.
Just sayin'.