I think the highlighted is key. The right as enumerated is either vague or slightly narrowed by the first clause, but over time has grown through case law to meet the needs or expectations of society. I would say the commerce clause has done the same, by example. While I think one has been generally good for the country and the other not, I can clearly see that the law as it is now is not the same as the framers laid out.
Yes, but which of those two is the good one and which is the bad?
More seriously, you say that the law is vague, but clearly "not the same as the framers laid out". Juxtaposing vagueness with clarity like that seems contradictory. In any case, if it was vague then, it can only be different now by gaining clarity through case law and precedent. Which it has. Along with every other clause, amendment, and right in the original document. This is supposed to be a bad thing?
Or, the law is "slightly narrowed by the first clause", but is now clearly different. Which is true enough, but so what? A slight narrowing which expanded as it gained clarity over time. Again, this is a bad thing?
Either way, I don't see much of a problem.
Words having meaning, even if they are only included to get the thing done. That is my very point: someone didn't feel it would pass without the first part, so why should we act as if it did?
Because they didn't word it strongly enough to mandate a clear ruling to the contrary. So here we are, forced to interpret an (intentionally?) ambiguous clause in the basis of our nation's system of laws, and our ultimate protection from government intrusion (well, our antepenultimate protection, probably). I've given my interpretation. Have you given yours? I'm not sure.
Is your interpretation that the right pertains narrowly to state militia service?
If so, it seems that one plausible reading of the amendment is that the Federal government will not infringe on the right, full stop. The states, then, are free to establish whatever gun control they deem necessary to establish whatever well-regulated militia they deem necessary, free from any federal interference.
California might decide that the state needs no militia, and thus its citizen need not bear arms. No militia, no arms. Texas, meanwhile, might decide that each citizen is a militia unto themselves, and has the right to arm themselves however they see fit, within the bounds of public decency. Vermont, still smarting from the War of 1812, might find some middle ground in requiring every citizen to maintain an assault rifle, but allow them to hunt with it outside of their militia duties.
But that all takes us into gay marriage territory: It's an established principle that rights which cannot be infringed by the Federal government cannot be infringed by the states, either: If it's unconstitutional for the Federal government to ban homosexual unions, it's unconstitutional for California to ban homosexual unions. Same with the right to bear arms. If the feds can't infringe, neither can the states. If we take the two clauses together, then any state that wanted to infringe on the right would have to come up with some convoluted positive claim about their state militia, justifying some relevant infringement of the right to bear arms.
If we're to take the two clauses together, and assume for the sake of argument that the California National Guard meets the requirement of a state militia mandated by the Second Amendment, then I'd say a case could be made that all citizens of the state have the right to bear any arms common to the modern infantryman--notably, assault rifles and hand grenades.
Obviously the actual situation is a lot more bizarre, and a lot more baroque, than that straightforward reading, but what are you going to do? My take is that if you insist on applying the first clause, instead of restricting the right to bear arms, you'd expand the mandate to have state militias, and expand the right to bear arms along with it.
