This reasoning is a good live-demo of how politics has wormed its way into the current crop of judges due to the fact that this is a more than valid textualist argument that has been applied in other cases but you'll never see it actually argued by one for 2A. It really ought to be the progressive judges who make the case for 2A being expanded wider than the founder's could reasonably intend but they also won't argue it.

So we end up in this weird land because originalism and conservatism usually agree and so too progressivism and liberalism to the point where the lines of thought shape how more than the courts think of issues. But both sides end up having to do tricky mental gymnastics on this particular issue to resolve the two. But this is, of course, silly. It appeals only to the lizard brain who when faced with decisions far beyond the ability for humans to understand or are effectively arbitrary need a made up framework on which to post-hoc justify what are really just gut feelings.

When the answer to what path better is more obvious like "should people be allowed to buy a bazooka at Walmart" nobody is out here asking if the founders would have intended it, everyone just goes, "oh fuck no" and we move on.