Val, constitutional scholars have opined that the Supreme Court ruling you cite, the only one ever specifically on a 2nd Amendment issue, is flawed and flies in the face of every other Supreme Court ruling having to do with Amendments that use the language "the rights of the people shall not be infringed". In its worst case, judges sat as "philosopher kings" passing judgement as per their feelings, not as jurists responsible for interpreting the Constitution. But their use of the word "apparantly" is an idication that they were not ruling on this issue as an individual right anyway but deferring to the lower court, their only definitive ruling being on militias. Scholars feel that the 2nd Amendment and the issue of the rights of the people has never been specifically ruled upon.
"the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". What don't we understand.