Actually, if you go back and review the US code, other areas of the constitution, other legal writings and opinions from the people responsible for writing the constitution and this amendment, and the rest of the mountains of historical evidence, you'll find that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what you think it doesn't mean.
Historically, in context, the People were considered to be the Militia (US Code). The constitution gave the US Government the right to call up from the Militia an army, etc; and for the states to maintain a militia. As discussed here: http://www.constitution.org/co...
(and supported through other sources of linguistic study and writings of the period), the term "well-regulated" referred to something being in proper working order or well trained.
So, we have these facts:
1. The people of the United States themselves were considered the main defensive body, and all (male) members of society of a certain age range were automatically considered members of the unorganized militia.
2. The Constitution in other parts indicated that the States, and the Federal Government, had the right/duty to call up from the militia a military force, and that the militia was to exist.
3. We know that in the vernacular of the time, "well regulated", as stated in the amendment, was understood to mean "in good working order".
As such, and with laws down the line, it is, and has been, a right of the people to be armed.
Now, we may argue that times have changed, etc. etc. This does not denigrate or otherwise contradict the existence and persistence of an individual right to keep and bear arms, and given the extensive laws in place that control the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms, said right is also well-regulated by a modern definition as well.
I submit, further, that the fear over the private ownership of firearms is a topic which, due to the political nature of the discussion and the pressures of the media, has been blown greatly out of proportion. Such events such as Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. are seriously dark tragedies, and heinous crimes a la ted bundy and charlie manson. They should likewise be treated not as events decrying the "sad state of our society", as they are neither systemic nor pandemic, and instead be treated as the brutal crimes that they are, the same as any other serial killer or other major criminal escapade. When placed in context with other crimes unrelated to firearms, the frequency of such events and severity of the crimes are on par with the major spree and serial killers, rapists, etc. We have simply fetishized firearms on both sides into a totem of power, rather than viewing such things as simple tools, much as we have fetishized war and conflict to such a degree as to be an unhealthy fixation.