I prefer not to debate the wisdom of guns vs. no guns, CCW, and so on. I have my own view (reluctantly pro-gun) and others have theirs, and agree or disagree, nobody here is likely to change their mind.

What I'm interested in is the context and true meaning of the words used in the Second Amendment. The challenge is to read it objectively, letting go of your own position in order to determine the truth of what was intended by these words:

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.

I'm no expert on colonial times but my impression is that for the most part, every able-bodied male would have been expected to maintain a weapon and serve when called. That was the only way then to maintain a ready militia. Obviously that's no longer true today. IMO then, it's crystal clear that the SA in the context of the time applied to those who would serve in a "well-regulated militia." For those who disagree, answer this: why is a militia mentioned at all if that's not the meaning?

In modern times, state militias are most similar to the National Guard, though Georgia for one has its own modern version of a state militia . The idea that the SA applies to state militia members is further supported by Section 8 of Article I:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(skip to)

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That says the state government is responsible for providing weapons to militia members. The SA says the people may keep and bear arms - not buy or otherwise obtain them. This means they did not intend for people to be able to buy or obtain weapons as individuals, but to keep arms provided by the state and bear them when called forth for duty. Again this would be similar to the National Guard today.

So like it or not, that's one man's opinion of what the words mean in the context of the time. But it's pointless to debate the original meaning because the situation is so different now. Like the criminal justice system, the SA hasn't evolved with the times. We should be debating what laws make the most sense now.