"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In the military mindsest of the time, "well-regulated" did not mean "controlled with rules", but actually meant "able to march with discipline and keep formation". Almost all fighting at the time was done in tight formation, the contemporary theory holding that tighter, well-regulated, formations could concentrate fire upon the enemy formations better.

Up until the second half of the 20th century, the United States of America considered the militia to be comprised of all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 years of age. Of course, it wasn't until well after the Civil War that any non-white was included in the ranks of the militia, so it's easy to say that not everything which America did in the past was valid. On top of this, there were Armories in most towns in the 18th and 19th centuries where stores of military grade arms and ammunition were stored, and, in times of crisis, issued to the militia to protect the towns and nation from foreign invasion. The militias were expected to be armed exactly as the standing army, for the simple expedient of ammunition sharing. If units of militia were deployed with regular units, there would be no need for two types of ammunition to be carried in order to keep them all fighting.

In the modern era, that would mean that at each neighborhood Armory there would be an M-16A-2 being stored for each adult male in each neighborhood, and the President of the United States could order us to be mobilized and deployed in defense of the Nation to fight alongside the U.S. Army and National Guard.

Consider, if you will, the following paraphrase of the Second Amendment:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

That doesn't sound too unreasonible, does it?

It seems that those wish the 2nd Ammenement didn't exist would like us to believe that what the Framers WANTED to say, but fumbled the words, would read more like:

"A National Guard, being necessary to assist the Nation in states of emergency, the National Guard, under tight federal control, shall posess whatever weapons are necessary to shoot looters trying to steal our stuff. No private citizen has any rights whatsoever as concerns private ownership of firearms."

Oh, and another thing. Let's not forget that other nagging little word: "Bear". To bear is to carry. This ammendment then, taken in its entirity, does not just guarantee the right of the private citizen to own firearms, but to carry them. The Federal government should not make laws as prevent the private citizenry from owning and carrying firearms. Some years later it was decided that the Bill of Rights should also apply to State Governments, so they shouldn't be makeing such laws either.