I'm not worried.

Guns just aren't a big thing for me or my plans. I have them but if not no biggie. Seeing as that most of what I own are long guns and unlikely to be outlawed any time soon I'm unlikely to be effected. Even then. There are other ways.

Conceivably, given the wording of the article in question, they could say there is no individual right to gun ownership and that right is reserved for militia. I doubt they would see it that way but it is possible.

Also I wouldn't be so sure that the NRA talking points have anything to do with how they should "interpret the Constitution in the same frame of mind as the men who wrote it and intended it to be interpreted". At the time the BOR was written there were in fact existing regulations in many locations and localities and these were deemed reasonable and accepted by most people at the time. The idea that the writers of the BOR had an "any gun for anyone at any place" attitude is simply wrong.

Your unlikely to see any major change in the ability of governments, Fed, state or local, to impose what is seen as reasonable regulation. In fact one way of seeing this case is the idea that the DC law is being judged not so much on constitutionality but reasonableness.