Whenever you read a text that holds a great age, like the Bill of Rights or even an older English translation of a Biblical text, you find that (with minimal research) intent is lost as the meanings of grammar and vocabulary change, and such texts must be looked upon with a more etymological mindset (for lack of better terminology). What the fore fathers meant back in the 18th
century is very likely not going to translate too well through ~300 years - even in 50 years there are words that have changed meaning drastically through connotation and denotation. For instance, gay used to be synonymous with merry, now it means homosexual - and words are given new but co-existing meanings by culture, such as "troll" - I imagine you aren't calling someone a mythical beast when you call them a troll, although that very well could be what you meant. The wording of the second amendment can (and should) be broken down in the same way as other amendment. Let us break down the (rather easy to interpret, in my opinion) first amendment, with a focus on commas and punctuation, with an emphasis on their importance (or lack thereof) -
First Amendment wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first comma, while visually separating an idea, does not, in fact, separate an idea, but rather connects a corollary of sorts to an idea (the basic idea being government neutrality on religion, obviously). The semicolon acts (in this style/age of writing) as a way to separate an idea, just like a period, and then the upcoming comma connects the ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of text (as I interpret it, but that is another can of worms). The next semi-colon acts in the same way as the last, as does the next comma. I believe with updated grammar these amendments could be written in a much more concise manner, by simply removing commas and semi-colons, for instance -
First Amendment EDIT wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Such a revision keeps the intents of the amendment the same, while making it more concise, up to date, and takes a step towards a slightly more colloquial and easier to understand law. But we aren't talking about just the first amendment, but all of them, and the way of writing at the time has been proven through research to give a slightly different meaning to a comma and other punctuation.
Second Amendment wrote: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.
From the previous information, it should be easy to deduce that the 2nd
amendment relates specifically to a militia by and for the people, not two separate ideas.
All this being said, my personal beliefs line up somewhat with the forefathers - before owning a gun you must have relatively rigorous training (perhaps 16-20 (obviously non-consecutive) hours of training by a professional), and then monthly training (for ~2 hours) thereafter.