It is a slippery slope when the SCOTUS can rewrite the plain language of the Bill of Rights by striking out the the "and bear" portion of the second amendment.
They (well, the vast majority of them) are not literalists. We can't make a literalist argument for "and bear" without running into the literalist consideration of the first half of the amendment, which SCOTUS essentially erased from existence.
Now, while I'm fine with that erasure of the first half in the context that it delivers my preferred outcome, it comes with strings attached - namely that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
They are never going to sign off on the concept of an unfettered 2A right. Ever. Period. Finito.
That's just the way that it is.