They wrote the Second Amendment to be ambiguous and difficult to interpret. There's no point trying to get in their heads. Just apply the rules of legal interpretation, accept whatever results and say to hell with it. The learned judge wrote, BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it. The cause which moved the legislators to make the Second Amendment was the need for "a well regulated militia" to secure the state. Therefore, we should understand the word "people" in the sense that best achieves "the security of a free state." Since a "well regulated militia" is deemed essential to achieving that goal, it appears that "people" should be understood in the sense of that particular signification that would best achieve a "well regulated militia." The signification of "people" that would most likely result in a "well regulated militia" is "well regulated militia" or the "state." The best way to ensure the existence of a well regulated militia is to make sure it provided with arms. The founders who made the Original Constitution believed the best way to ensure that the state militias were provided with arms was to grant Congress the power to provide arms to the militias. To protect against Congress neglecting to arm the state militias, the best safeguard would be to grant the states the right to arm their own militias, if Congress neglects to do so. For several reasons, an individual right to keep and bear arms wouldn't be the best way to ensure that the militia was armed. For example, the individuals would have no duty to keep the type of arms a well regulated militia would need.