That is what you said. It doesn't actually reference the "article" from SAF but paraphrases a portion of the actual decision, from which it appears you made the assumption that defense against government tyranny was not addressed therein, when in fact it was.
One would think you'd be pleased to learn it was an aspect of the decision, but rather you argue about the content of an article you did not even mention in your original post.
If you have a problem with what SAF published in reference to this issue you should take it up with them.
The linked article I referred to was at the bottom of the posted article and was from Yahoo Finance. I have no issues with SAF, FR, or even Yahoo Finance, but I do have issues with you because I have repeatedly posted that what I read made no mention of the reference to the original justification for the Second Amendment.
You have repeatedly insisted that I didn’t read the decision so I must be ignorant. I even posted verbatim the article from Yahoo Finance and asked you to show me where, in that article, it made any reference to the Founder’s original intent. Rather than respond to my request, you, again, pointed out that I didn’t read the full decision and directed me to particular pages in the original decision which were not in the Yahoo Finance article.
So, you read the material at SAF, I read the article that was linked to the FR posting at Yahoo Finance. I am thrilled that the SCOTUS still acknowledges that the Founder’s original justification and intent was to provide the citizens a counterbalance against a strong central government. It’s comforting to know that, occasionally, the SCOTUS still provides passing acknowledgement of the Founder’s original intentions with the BOR, even though they don’t do it often enough.