The only thing novel about the reasoning in Heller was it was the first time revisionists tried to argue to SCOTUS that the 2A meant anything but an individual right. Prior to Heller it was very clearly understood to be individual and as the first time it was actually proposed it was specifically shut down. Even Miller, which is often seen as a gun control “win,” references it as an individual right. Now neither Miller nor his lawyer actually showed up for arguments so SCOTUS was limited to only ruling based on the government’s side alone but even with the cards massively stacked the ruling was “sawed off shotguns aren’t useful to the militia so Miller’s 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn’t extend to them.” It was very clearly held that he had an individual right, just not to the type of arm he was charged with having. I also drive past short barrel shotguns regularly since they are used all over the Air Force base where I work, but it’s a shame that there is no “use” for them in the military meaning they “aren’t covered…” Gun control started with attempts to disarm Native Americans and flourished in the 20th century to disarm African Americans and other minorities. It has always been routed in racism and one of the most obvious examples is found in the terrible Dred Scott decision. It was brought up that if African Americans received rights and privileges under the Constitution it would include the right to own firearms. It was very specifically known and understood that this was not a collective right at this time and this absolute fact was used as a reasoning to deprive minorities of any rights whatsoever.

Obviously no right is unlimited, but that single sentence from Heller isn’t a “do anything you want” gun control freebie. You can’t ban someone’s speech because they might say something you don’t like. You can’t ban a religion for not being an officially recognized one, look at the CFSM and Scientology. There is absolutely a limit to what constitutes a “bearable arm” so the standard nuke hyperbole is obvious to anyone arguing in good faith. Bearing arms is also not carte blanche to actively brandish and threaten/harm people. It’s illegal to murder someone with a gun and that is obviously not an infringement. Saying that I can’t have the same gun the military protects itself from danger with because there is no use of it in the military isn’t one of these “limits” that was referred to, nor is saying that when vulnerable in public where the government or a 3rd party aren’t actively responsible for my safety I need to disarm to allow criminals the path of least resistance.

They’ve also been right and usually aren’t wrong over and over again spanning back several generations, especially when the intent of the founding fathers was quite clear to any but those wishing to strip rights from people.