It is fascinating, especially when you consider how many of the 2A cases hinge upon the Court deriving the intent of the authors of the Constitution and using that intent to interpret the 2A. So yes, I find it interesting that deriving intent is OK when it supports your worldview or political beliefs, but not so much when it does not.
The intent behind the 2nd is pretty easy to ascertain through reading materials from that era by those involved in the drafting of the constitution, as well as their contemporaries. The wording while clunky to us is not really that unclear either, if you are remotely familiar with the rules of grammar.
In this case we have the primary paid consultant on video expressing an opposite opinion of what the court ruled.
Early on there were warnings that if a state didn't set up an exchange their citizens weren't going to get tax credits.
The words are very exact and precise as one should expect in a law.
The court basically decided to change the legislation by fiat due to the unintended consequences.
It wasn't the intent of the words (the law) they interpreted, it was the intent of the outcome they interpreted.