Dakota, you're correct, of course. Yet at the same time, a bit of veering can and should occur if we are to fully understand what is protected by the right, in its plain language and understand what is protected by the right as opined by the Supreme Court.
They are not always the same thing.
"Shall not be infringed," is perhaps the strongest verbiage that has been used by the Constitution to describe what the Federal Government may not do. In that respect, those who hold to an absolutist view, are correct. Yet they are also wrong.
Elsewhere in our Constitution, the Supreme Court has been given the Judicial Power to interpret what those words mean and how far those word stretch. That authority is contained in Article III section 1.
What some people fail to understand is that this "Judicial Power" that is granted by the Constitution stems from our Common Law that was inherited from the British, at the time of our founding. Part and parcel of this judicial power was the authority to interpret what the meaning of the law was. That interpretation includes the very Constitution itself.
As the Court has held, no right is absolute.
In terms of the 2A, we are at the threshold of determining the boundaries of the right. It's going to be a long process and there will be things decided that we will not like. There will also be things decided that the (various) government(s) won't like. That's just the nature of the beast.