CatBus, just as one shouldn’t ignore the beginning of the 2nd Amendment, one shouldn’t ignore the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
If you call “restricting scope via definition” ignoring, then we all ignore that part of the Second Amendment. Arms doesn’t even mean guns. Arms can mean chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. So what we’ve done is scale back to something less, something that the courts consider sensible. Right now that so-called sensible line is at fully-automatic weapons. It hasn’t always been there and won’t always be there. This flexible expanding and contracting line of what qualifies for Second Amendment protections is your “living document” approach, and it reached its current level only fairly recently via activist interpretation.
You could also scale the term “arms” back to what the framers of the Constitution literally meant when they wrote “arms” (your true Strict Constructionist approach, not a Scalia Fake Constructionist approach), and then you could ban everything more modern than muskets and the Second Amendment would be fine with that.
You can take the Second Amendment seriously and come up with wildly different interpretations. Part of that is because it’s so poorly worded and anachronistic.