To a European, used to being able to walk down the street without being threatened by guns, it actually seems to support the original. I have huge trouble believing that the original intent was actually "'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, any damned fool should be able to have whatever weapons he wants without anyone else having any say in the matter". Why would you even mention a Well Regulated Militia if there was no expectation of there being a militia and it being well regulated?