How so? There doesn’t seem to be antagonism to 2A in the rest of the article.
If he had included the rest of the Franklin quote, his summation would have made little sense because it would have clearly been a reference to the 2nd amendment, since that is what Franklin was clearly referring to.
They believed that the people should have their say, but also that certain underlying rules should remain in place that should take precedence over the will of a simple majority. Ultimately, that's the only way that the wolves and the lambs can happily co-exist over the long haul.
'Certain underlying rules'? That would be the 2A and no other. But as it is presented, it's a bit ambiguous.
Here's a rule that allows for no ambiguity.
When the wolf is at your door, dispatch it with prejudice. Do not tarry.
The author used the wolf analogy, not I.