That's the support for your argument? That in the past century and a half there have been some reversals? Further "supported" by a contrasting a current sitting Supreme court justice, with someone who was not a member of the Supreme Court? I'm sure you could find tons of judges that that have differing views. But their views don't matter in the context what the supreme court might or might not do, barring the slight chance that one of them were appointed to the supreme court.
No one will argue, that over the course of time, there won't be reversals in decision. However, what you have presented is not evidence that the current justices have either "ignored their own recent precedent" or that they would be prone to reverse on the Heller decision's definition of arms. What you have presented is that in roughly 150 years covering thousands of cases/decisions, 10 have been reversed. Coincidentally, 9 out of 10 of those reversals increased protections/freedoms for citizens by limiting government powers, not further restricting them by expanding or upholding government powers.
You can feel that the SCOTUS has become politicized, but that does not support your opinion that the Heller decision is minimal in value or make that statement "sad but true", nor does it support the conclusion that "the court members are getting more fast and loose".