well, the opinion does say that states may regulate all kinds of firearms and the decision is not a blank check to allow people to buy things like bazookas. in fact, there have been decisions post heller that allowed regulations forbidding the sale or ownership of some firearms (a decision that came out of...wait for it....highland park, illinois).
i still think heller and its progeny are a real stretch. they go through a lot of hoops to justify their opinion that the 2A means that you have a right to self defense with a gun. that said, i do think the original meaning was that the government shouldnt be allowed to confiscate people's personal guns.
but as you always say, that was a much different world than we live in now. i think the results of this decision are being overblown a bit, but i definitely disagree with it and if we lived in a functioning governmental world (and had a more trusting populace) the 2A would be amended to clarify what the majority of the population actually wants.