It was pretty clear when they made it.
I have heard this said every now, especially before Heller when the anti argument that the National Guard was the militia and/or single shot muskets were all that were protected was making the rounds. A relatively recent argument that was so far beyond reality it wouldn't have even gained traction in some prior decades, and showed just how gullible some of the population had become.
The thing is the nation knew what it meant. It was known for over 100 years. They still knew what it meant at the time the NFA was put into place in 1934, and the Miller case even showed it. (They acknowledged the NFA was unConsitutional if it restricted guns suitable for militia use, and then went on to say with no witnesses or legal representation on behalf of the deceased defendent to offer proof that a short barreled shotgun was suitable for military use that it was presumed to not be covered. Essentially what they said is had it been a full auto as then used like a BAR or most certainly something like a modern select fire standard arm today, it would have been a Constitutional right. Had the defendent had some legal representation they could have also shown shotgun use in WW1 and likely won the case entirely.)
But the NFA was rammed through anyways, FDR had strong pressure on the Supreme Court at the time as demonstrated in getting his New Deal passed and court packing threats, and other politicians were still afraid and saw opportunity.
It would appear the source of fear was largley a result of the fear the Bonus Armyin D.C. camped outside the Capitol in 1932. They vowed to do something about that threat in the future. FDR was there at the time, saw the threat, and got into power the following year. Something was done.
The current gangster issues used as the pretense for passing it, but the very clear threat of massed angry trench warfare veterans who could legally arm themselves with modern weapons of war being what scared the politicians. Even a large number of people and politicians at the time knew the NFA was unConstitutional and expected it to be shot down in Constitutional review and merely expected it to be more of a temporary thing. However by remaining unreviewed from Miller until modern times so much time elapsed that what was felt certain by many to be deemed unconstituional had become the accepted norm by the time of Heller, even to groups like the NRA.
Several decades after the NFA even the intellectual antis knew what it meant and just prior to Heller were simply attempting to create a new reality by convincing people it meant something different. They felt it was outdated and were attempting to create a new reality through dishonesty and deception. Most of the intelligent ones never really believed it applied to the National Guard, or was limited to outdated weapons, but they knew they could get simple followers like young college students that wouldn't take the time or make the effort to research on thier own to buy into it.
How much clearer can you be? A right that was protected to resist tyranny, and which they go out of thier way to say shall not be infringed.
It is pretty obvious what that implies. Arms powerful enough to allow resistence to military forces are protected, and that right shall not be infringed upon.
Where confusion started to stem from is much of the population began to support some restrictions on some types of weapons.
As this was technically a violation of the 2nd, they had to create some interpretation that allowed it.
You saw this even in Heller. They wanted to keep machineguns restricted and they wanted to keep prohibited persons for example, both clear violations of the 2nd. But both with relatively widespread support as the population has grown used to such things in place.
To reach this new quasi 2nd Amendment interpretation you have to stretch things. Manipulate interpretation in a way that sorta adheres to the desire to keep guns legal, but doesn't really not infringe on them.
With such manipulation accepted and allowed on both sides, pro and anti-gun, you have reached acceptance that the 2nd doesn't mean what it says for the purpose it was created, and as a result it becomes more of a matter of the two sides trying to manipulate it in thier favor. Figuring out what false interpretation best suites what they think is desirable.
The solid lines are erased, and you have this line in the sand that can be moved around. You know it can't be moved too far in some directions, but don't really know what too far is, and it can change over time.
As a result of this I really don't think any wording, especially one short and to the point as they wanted the Bill of Rights to be, would have done any better.
They would have reinterpreted it anyways.
