Here's the thing with this 2nd Amendment, and this Heller decision, it's still a little vague and open to interpretation, so it will probably go back to a future Supreme Court for further clarification.

You could argue that in the original meaning, it referred to single shot, black powder, muzzle loaded firearms, swords, lances, maces and daggers.
And the decision clearly does not effect restrictions on automatic weapons.
Because what's not clearly defined is where the line is drawn, between a flint lock musket, and an UZI.
What characteristics make it a protected class of bearable arms, as opposed to a class of bearable arms that are not protected?

What of future technology, what happens when directed energy devices become small enough to carry and powerful enough to be lethal, were the founding fathers securing the right to bear "Death ray" devices for all time?

What if it's determined that at some point in the future, that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary, does that remove the entire article

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address