The funny part is I once watched a legal scholars breakdown of the 2A and why it made sense and how language drift has caused the issue and that this would not have been a confusing sentence to individuals of the period it was written in. The supreme court rulings and positions support his conclusion and based on it, there is little in the law to be "interpreted".
If we look at the crux of the issue it is this part of the text that causes issues: "a well-regulated militia" this issue, specifically is the term regulated. In modern terminology, regulated takes on the meaning of controlled and generally implies controlled by an authority, which even in classical definition there is some connotation to control by a system of rules that govern it, but it implies that the control are a ruleset that guarantee a desired outcome. In colloquial terminology regulation would more translate into a word that meant "to supply via a process or ruleset to keep functioning properly" and in this context the 2A makes perfect sense. The best example I can think of is a regulator on a SCUBA tank, it regulates the supply of air so that the diver receives the correct amount of air. This is the concept that is being transferred in the 2A. The framers where concerned with government infringement, they wanted to ensure that the militias where well supplied via a process, the 2A is that process or ruleset to regulate (supply the militia) thus their individual right to keep and bare arms shale not be infringed. I have tried and tried to find that video and wish I would have bookmarked it as it really helped make sense of a confusing sentence that can imply a different meaning when "interpreted" with the modern dual use of the word regulated.
If one takes the text and replaces the word regulated with supplied it becomes apparent what the intent was:
"A well supplied Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The issue is, that regulated more confers what they where trying to say and that was that they need the Militia supplied by men and guns via a process, that process and ruleset that regulates the supply is the 2A, specifically the lack of ability to infringe the right to keep and bare arms.
This is also why the practice of possession of a weapon in public is not an extension of the 2A. As it does not deprive a person of their right to keep and bare arms, yet restricting a particular class of arms does, thus we cannot ban handguns.
