Will the Next Supreme Court Justice Support the Second Amendment?

[Alcon]

I'm not aware of any Supreme Court Justice actually supporting the Second Amendment in recent history, so it doesn't really matter since he would still be outvoted 8-1.

Two wrongs make a right falacy.

He did not say they that this was right, he just says that it is true.  And his argument is that it would be pointless anyway, since it would be 8-1 instead of 9-0, which isn't a logical fallacy.

[Alcon]

It's a start. Is putting an anti-Roe justice on there a waste of time, since the makeup of the court would still just be 5-4 in favor instead of 6-3 in favor?

No, but one is rather more of an urgent matter than the other.

[Alcon]

The Court ruled 7-2 that the Sedition Act of 1918, which it a criminal offense to criticize the U.S. federal government, did not violate the first amendment.

Putting a judge on there who supports the first amendment would be a pretty urgent matter, not because it'll tip the balance of the court, but because there aren't any openings to waste.

That is true, although that was part of what (I recall) was generally a temporary sense of rah-rah nationalism.  That sort of thing is subject to "trends" of acceptance and rejection; gun control, on the other hand, is generally not that way.