I'm aware of those SCOTUS decisions. But just because society generally follows the decisions SCOTUS puts out, that doesn't make them infallible. Historically, SCOTUS at least generally had some internal consistency and respect for precedent. These days, members of the court are originalists at some times, textualists at other times, and something else entirely whenever it suits them... essentially whatever framework it takes to construct a plausible sounding legal argument to support their personal position on the issue.
This unmooring from legal norms is partly the reason why SCOTUS's reputation is in tatters, both amongst the general public, but perhaps more importantly amongst other members of the legal profession. It is also why many of the SCOTUS's opinions in the Robert's court era are and will continue to be damaging to the US as a country.
Now, based on SCOTUS's own behavior, I see no reason to believe their recent 2nd Amendment rulings are the final say on the matter. After all, they've demonstrated that any future court is free to come in and completely revise precedent if it suits the majority, so unfortunately no, those rulings don't clear up any of my 'confusion' on the 2nd Amendment.