I do not think that the Bill of Rights - or any Amendments - have one, or even a few, meanings/purposes, etc. That is what I gather an "originalist" believes. But that makes no sense - as people can agree on the wording of a phrase but not agree as to its purpose or its intent. The "founding fathers" certainly disagreed over meanings and intents - but why limit yourself to them if you are an "originalist" since it is "we the people" who established the Constitution.
Anyways - if you believe the wording of the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the people/states from a tyrannical government then doesn;t it stand to reason that the people/states should have access to the weapons the central government has? I mean while having some amount (if history is any indicator it will be very very far from most) of resistance with handguns, rifles, and shotguns will cause problems for any government trying to exert its will - it certainly wouldn;t be a match for anything like what the U.S. military has become today.