I like you books analogy. It helps clear up what the intended meaning is.
Arguing the semantics of it, though, distracts from the real issue. It's all well and good to understand what the writers of the amendment meant, and to understand why they wrote it when they wrote it. The appropriate question should be: Is it still relevant today? Is it still serving its intended purpose. It was amended into the constitution. It can be amended out. It was not an infallible law handed down by God.
Today, the free and easy access to guns granted by that amendment is responsible for many times more lost innocent lives than it is preventing. Are the benefits of that freedom really worth all those lost lives? Is this what the writers really wanted?
To continue your analogy, what would be the proper recourse if people started using those books for something other than their intended purpose? If a bunch of teenagers started throwing their textbooks at each other in a classroom, the appropriate recourse is to confiscate their textbooks, not to blindly follow the constitution.