The meaning of the word was perfectly clear in 1789. And the SCOTUS reclarified it’s meaning in 2008 in Heller. It is not open for you to reinterpret it as you see fit.
They have a sworn duty to uphold and enforce constitutional laws. They have an equal duty to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. If you don’t like it, you can take them to court.
Don’t accuse others of calling you a liar when they didn’t. He said it was dishonest of you to attribute things to him that he never said … which you did.
Yes, but that does not negate the Ruling. The case before them was about short barreled shotguns which had been made illegal (without a permit) by the 1934 National Firearms Act. They ruled that the defendant (Miller) had no Constitutional right to keep and bear a short barreled shotgun because they were not common military issue weapons. They were incorrect in that reasoning (short barreled shotguns were issued and used extensively by the Army during WWI) but it was very clear that the basis for their ruling was that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the citizens right to keep and bear military arms.