Taken together, everything he says is a formula for incrementalism. You don't have a right as an American citizen to keep and bear arms. You only have that right as a citizen of your state. Now there are 50 different RKBA's which can all be attacked individually. The right to keep and bear arms itself is further divided into any number of "rights" to keep and bear various kinds and descriptions of firearms, each of which can be infringed while still maintaining that you still have the right to keep and bear arms as long as some of them (no matter how trivial) remain.
I've just got some time to waste right now. ;-)
The problem is that under Supreme Court decisions, there is no national right to bear arms. In Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore the court found the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.
Although the 14th Amendment states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”, and the authors of the amendment said it extended the Bill of Rights to the States, the Supreme Court in the Slaughter House cases found that the Bill of Rights was not extended to the states.
So, we are protected from action by the federal government with the 2nd Amendment, and left with no protections for our rights to bear arms other than those found in our state constitutions.
In a perfect world, the Supreme Court will take these cases, find a personal right, and incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states so we would have national protection of the right to bear arms.
Maybe, though, our bigger problem is that we look to the Supreme Court to determine the limitations of our rights, when really they have no other authority then what they have given themselves.