Your memory is a bit off. The text is:

>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

It's the only amendment that comes with a justification so it's unusual but there's nothing in the text that limits the right to the listed justification.

> if the 2nd amendmend was literally interpreted it would be (quoting from memory) “in order to form a well-ordered militia the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”

I don't agree at all that this is a case of creative reading. The actual text of the amendment is "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."

Note that the text does not say "in order to" or anything like that, which is why interpretation of this amendment gets controversial. Was the intent that bearing arms is only a right insofar as people are part of a local militia? Was the intent that people must have the right to bear arms and the militia was simply cited as one example of why? It is genuinely unclear from the text, which means that no matter what we do we have to layer our own interpretation on top. That doesn't mean anyone is reading the law creatively, that's just the unfortunate facts of having to deal with an unclear text.

Or it means that if the government needs to call in levies, it would be good if the volunteers could show up with appropriate weapons. Ironically an automatic rifle (think an AK) could be what they're talking about, while pistols (being arguably useless side-arms in a battlefield) might be far less in the spirit of the law.

Historically, not owning a sword or longbow could get you in legal trouble in some cities and time periods, since it meant you weren't capable of helping defend the city. I'd say that in the spirit of the law, it should mostly allow the ownership of useful infantry weapons, or dual purpose ones (hunting rifles?), rather than self defence pistols.

But the US interprets it differently because the constitution is a bit vague, the constitution is hard to change, and practicalities and politics exist.

That's... how the 2nd amendment used to be treated, actually: state laws against conceit carry have lo-o-ong history, and they've been held to be perfectly constitutionally until recently. Oh, and "well-regulated" used to mean "well trained and supplied" back in those day.

And the 2nd actually reads (if you fix its grammar since it's ungrammatical by the standards of the modern English language) "since the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" — now notice that it's a conditional rule, and its premise in "since..." is no longer true, militias are not necessary for the security of a country; and so the conclusion should lose its power. And arguably it's what the Founders intended: if they meant it as an absolute rule, they would've omitted the first part of it and would have simply stated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", period.