Interpreting the 2nd Amendment

In The District of Columbia v. Heller, a decision was reached that gave the right to police officer Dick Heller to have an unregistered gun in his home.  The District of Columbia had previously confiscated the weapon, and Mr. Heller filed suit claiming his 2nd Amendment rights had been violated due to the confiscation.  The majority decision was written by Justice Scalia.  He argued that according to the 2nd amendment, all citizens should be allowed to have a weapon in their home, not just for purposes of joining a militia, but mostly for self-defense.  The dissent was written by Justice Stevens.   He argued that the 2nd Amendment gave the right to legislators to regulate non-military ownership of weapons, or rather that the 2nd Amendment didn't guarantee a citizen to unlimited rights to gun ownership for self-defense purposes.    
A more recent decision was made by the Texas legislature allowing students and faculty at all public Universities in Texas to carry a concealed firearm on campus, provided it is legally owned and registered to the owner.  This decision has created a lot of controversy and protest on University campuses around the State.  These two cases represent two sides of the gun debate - one a legitimate debate about interpreting the 2nd amendment and public safety, the other a dangerous game of politics and propaganda.    
The 2nd Amendment is one of the most controversial in the Constitution.  Like the other amendments, there is a lot of room for interpretation.  Conservatives tend to argue that gun rights are necessary as citizens have the right to protect themselves from aggression.  They tend to read the 2nd Amendment as a literally meaning that American citizens can arm themselves to the teeth, with no restriction.  Liberals argue while self-defense is a legitimate reason to own a gun, there should still be restrictions on gun ownership for the good of the public.  They point to other cultures where gun ownership is rare, and where murders by firearm are also rare.  "Why can't we be like them?", they seem to say.
I think that both arguments have merit, and I agree with the Conservative argument that guns are an effective means for self-defense (they can certainly be effective).  However, I also agree with the Liberal argument that unrestricted ownership of guns for all is dangerous.
I appreciate the debate, as long as it is earnest, and I think in the first example DC v Heller, the debate was.  However, I can't imagine how in the second example I provided - concealed carry on campus - that there was any earnest debate at all - at least from the Conservative side.  It seems to me that the only real excuse to vote for allowing concealed carry on campus is to show the gun lobby and your constituents just how "pro-gun" you can be.  But why?  I believe it is the NRA lobby.  They are crazy and I doubt whether they have the public good at heart - just as I doubt that politicians that want to disarm the public wish to do so for the public's good.  The law allowing concealed carry on public university campuses has nothing to do with public safety, except insofar as it degrades it, and everything to do with advancing the interests of the gun lobby and their politicians.
Now, my belief is that gun companies just want to sell more guns, and thus they need their market to expand as much as possible.  Like any capitalistic entity, they are weary of competition, and are actively trying to decimate it.  And politicians, as well as the NRA lobby, just want to get more influence - their form of capitol.  The two working together is a recipe for disaster.  While some gun laws are passed in the interest of public safety, many are passed in the interest of gaining attention and political power.  This is a dangerous game, and it makes a mockery of the 2nd amendment, which I believe was designed to protect the citizenry, not make them gun-crazy, or on the other end of the spectrum, gun-phobic.
Guns are dangerous, useful and effective at doing two things - killing and maiming.  It is necessary that any debate about gun ownership should be taken with the utmost seriousness by all parties involved, as I believe both sides have arguments worth hearing.  I wouldn't mind hearing the Supreme Court's debate Texas' concealed carry law.