A tortured reading? This is the plain meaning. You missed the whole point. Yes, they said that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the States under the Privileges and Immunities Clause consistent with Cruikshank (and Heller used the 14th Amendment to apply the 2nd Amendment to the States under Due Process), so the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the case at the time, but it clearly interprets the right to bear arms to all people, and not special militia groups:
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve military force or reserve militia of the United States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."
Thus, the Court states that the states may not "prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms." Further, the militia is not a select, uniformed force, instead, the militia consists of "all citizens capable of bearing arms."
That is what you challenged toilet destroyer to above. That has been the interpretation since the case came out.
The key distinction is it stated the 2nd Amendment only restricted the Federal Government, so it said States could restrict gun ownership. At the time, most of the Constitution did not apply to the States, which of course has changed dramatically.