As it is written there is a difference of opinion on what exactly it means. For that reason I suppose it could be made less open to interpretation. To me, the "People" and the "Militia" are two things, but a person can
be both. The part that confuses people (or more directly the anti-gunners of any political leanings) is where it says "A well regulated
militia". I must admit that this does make it sound as though a Militia must be an organized group, otherwise it would not by definition be "well regulated". :
The definition of Militia is some version of this:
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
And the third definition is the one that we (I think all of us here) are prone to use. "Liberals", or rather the anti 2A crowd, seem to use a definition or their own that seems to put "Militia" in a category that would be synonymous to the National Guard. Or that is how it appears to me.
So, can a Person (because the 2A does not distinguish a Person (the People) from a Citizen, so non-citizens also have the Right to Bear Arms) by themselves be considered a part of the "Militia"? I say yes. I think that is where the anti 2A people get off the tracks.
It seems to me that one of the main causal factors in our collective confusion (as a nation mind you) is that we do not pay as much attention to the numerous times that the Supreme Court has reviewed the 2A and so therefore we do not have a clear and understandable way to explain how it has been interpreted by the SCOTUS. Part of this blame may be on the SCOTUS's shoulders, as their decisions may not be easy enough for the majority of us to understand.