My understanding is that it is the SC that determines what the Constitution says, and it has made no ruling on the meaning of the 2nd.
There are arguments pro and con on guns and gun control based on non-SC interpretations of the Constitution, but none of these arguments are valid until the Supreme Court says so.
It is also my understanding that whatever the eventual interpretation of the 2nd, it is presently constitutional, according to the SC, for *states* to control and limit guns, despite the equal protection clause. As I understand it, the SC has to rule on each and every section of the Amendments before the equal protection clause applies, and it has never done so for the 2nd. Whew. I hope I got that right.
My background is too limited to argue with anybody. I am repeating what a retired US district judge has told me (from a liberal point of view), and what a lawyer friend has told me (from a libertarian point of view). They agree closely.
Both sides in the argument avoid going to the SC until it has the "perfect" case. And the SC avoids the issue because it wants the question settled politically, not judicially (my interpretation).
It's interesting that Harpers presents the gun nuts legalistic interpretation as valid if that's what it did. IMO, that is unscholarly. It is not a decided question.
John K. Taber