When the constitution was ratified, the militia was the only defense that the United States had, and all able bodied men were expected to be ready to serve.
Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.
And yes, I know that this opinion is not popular on a site as conservative as slashdot.
I don't see where you wrote any opinion.
It's a fact that the definition of "militia" at the time of the writing of the Constitution was radically different from what we think of today. A modern day wording might be "anybody who is eligible to be drafted into the military". With the 1770s definition of "militia" in mind, the proposed change in TFA really means nothing. "Militia" was just everyone who wasn't presently in the army but could be if needed.
It's also a fact that the wording of the 2nd isn't as clear as it should be, and likewise that we can't be 100% sure whether the "militia" part was intended as a comment or a limit for the right.
Even if it was a limit, though, with the definition of "militia" at the time of the writing, it would limit to something like any male older than about 14. Since that time, women have been defined as equal to men in most ways, and since they can serve in the military, and we treat 14-year-olds as children instead of adults, the current definition would be something like "any person 18 years or older". And, since "regulated" meant "trained" at the time of the writing, we end up with:
People well-trained in the handling of firearms being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of persons 18 years and older to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.