Since it seems like no other people have actually posted the text from the Congressional 2nd Amendment, I'll do it here:
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.
What I find interesting about the phrasing of this amendment is that it's fairly ambiguous, and was probably intended to be so, so that the future citizens and statesmen of the United States can define it themselves. So far, I haven't seen it defined fairly definitively, and it seems that it will continue to be that way in my lifetime.
I'll just post how I read each little phrase and clause in this, primarily so I can find fallacies in my thinking with help from this community:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
In this particular line, a well regulated Militia could be many things, including a pool of able bodied people capable of being drawn for national defense, a specific defense service, a reserve army, or a privatized military group. In addition, the particular text refers to the militia as being necessary for the security of a free State. Consequently, that could mean that the free State requires the militia in order to remain secure.
Considering the role of volunteer military units in the War of American Independence, I would consider a militia to be a locally organized group responsible for the defense of their national ideas within their area of origin. In addition, due to the fact that the area was embroiled in a war, there was a general lack of security in communities, thus leading to the militias.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
The citizens of the nation's right to keep and bear weapons, without any clear intention, is permissible and protected under law.
Due to the fact that this is included in the same sentence as the one about militias, I would think that citizens are able to keep weapons in order to be part of a militia quickly.
shall not be infringed.
The government maintains all abilities to revoke these rights at any time, and can brutally oppress their people using any objects or weapons which they wish.The rights referred to in the earlier part of the sentence can't be violated.
Not sure how this plays out, but there's my take on this.