I read it. I note with interest that when discussing the Virginia debate, the author left out Thomas Jefferson -- a prominent Virginian, yes?
Jefferson proposed that the 1776 Virginia state constitution contain the (oft-quoted) phrase, "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." That's pretty clear as to the intent, yes? I'd say that makes your point, correct?
What is not oft-quoted is that his proposed amendment was defeated. Instead, the Virginia state delegation opted for:
"SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
I have stated time and again the the individual RKBA is protected by each state's constitution. Any quotes you have from proposals for early state constitutions regarding the RKBA do indeed support this. I have no problems with that.
But to say that some prominent individual proposed some amendment to a STATE constitution saying that individuals had the RKBA in no way supports the same for an amendment to the FEDERAL constitution. For example: Certainly the Founding Fathers supported the police power of each state to protect the health and safety of its citizens -- but to take those words of support and then apply them to, say, the General Welfare Clause of the U.S. Constitution thereby giving the same police power to the federal government would be disingenuous at best. Apples and oranges.
The founders supported the individual right to keep and bear arms. That right was defined and protected by the state constitution. It was enforced by state law, subject to challenges to the state supreme court. Period.
The second amendment protects the integrity of a state Militia. Your cite mentions two extremely weak cases, one of which is a fourth amendment case referencing the second amendment in passing. I can cite two dozen very strong second amendment lower federal court cases saying that the second amendment does not protect an individual right. That doesn't mean I like it, contrary to your insinuations. It just means what is, is.
The Militia of the U.S. Constitution (and second amendment) no longer exists. The National Guard has taken its place. To say that able-bodied citizens constitute the "reserve militia" is all well and good, but the second amendment refers to a well-regulated Militia with officers appointed by the state which this "reserve militia" is not.
The U.S. Supreme Court, of course, will be the final arbiter. I would consider it to be unwise, given previous rulings, to demand that the USSC define the second amendment for every citizen.