The intent is and always has been the same. And what good is it to try to explain something if all we do is just type exactly what everyone knows it says and say "see, I told you"???
Anyway...
In all the debates over the proposed amendments, none of the founders had any problem knowing how to read this article. They argued much over religious exemptions, but very little over the notion that well regulated militias were necessary. The Militia were composed of the people. The people keeping and bearing arms were the Militias.
Mr. Gerry: objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one....It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security..."
Mr. Scott: objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army.
You want to argue what exactly is meant by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" have at it, but there is NO doubt that that right is what was secured, and NO doubt why...because the militias were necessary. {and Congress now had power on how they would be regulated, including how they would be armed...the people had to be sure they wouldn't be DISarmed.}
Mr Gerry: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this {religious exemtion} clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
= new reply since forum marked as read
