I think both of you (Azusa and SMA) made some good points but your last one Azusa is kind of strange.
"[T]he framers intended the citizenry to possess weaponry [...] as a check against the might of the militia."
I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment is a militia check against the army. Not a citizen check against the militia. Militias are made up of citizens instead of soldiers right? The framers didn't want the federal government to use the army to bully States so an amendment was passed to prohibit prohibiting militias.
"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 don't see how you can claim it's the clearest amendment while the nation has been having this same discussion about its meaning since just about the time it was written.