The Second Amendment is only unclear when you don’t consider the rest of the Constitution. In fact, it is one of a number of related pieces and represents a capstone of these. In particular:
- The Second Amendment mentions that it serves the militia interest.
- The power to provide for and call forth the militia is delegated to Congress, not the states, and
- While Congress can allocate money for any length of time to serve the militia interests, standing armies must not have funds allocated for more than two years.
In my view these need to be read together, and when you read them together, you see that the Constitution is hostile to having standing armies and supportive of organizing armed civilians into militias to defend the nation.
This means that the form of gun ownership and gun control contemplated in the Constitution is similar to that in Switzerland today. And Switzerland has a lot of gun control but also a lot of guns in private hands.
But people read the 2nd Amendment on its own because either they want to hold that this is fundamentally an individual right devoid of obligations, or that it is something which can be reinterpreted out of existence.