Gonna probably hate myself for stepping in here, but it's where it gets confusing for me. Be clear I'm a gun owner, with a couple of AR-15s and a couple of AKs among the collection so I'm not just trying to raise a fuss.
I've always read the 2nd amendment in the context of the entire document. To me what it has always said, and this is trying to frame it within the time frame it was written, that the Feds can't tell the people they can't have personal weapons. It doesn't say that there can't be regulation on a State level. It refers to Militia in more then one place and makes it clear that the states are to regulate their own militias under standard guidelines set down by the Feds on the chance they need to be used to defend the country as a whole, but even that is on the OK of each state which provide the leadership for said state militia. It also says that the Feds would provide the arms if neccesary.
So that individual right to bear arms is also subject to the training and regulation of each state which each of us would be responsible to as gun owners. If it hits the fan, we're an armed force to be used under federal training guidelines implimented by each state and under the leadership of local officers.
The whole goal of the amendment, reading it from here, was to allow the citizens of each state some protection from the federal government implementing martial law over the country and taking control with a federal army.
So basically a state could impliment different gun laws, yet be responsible to provide it's own militia of armed citizens, trained by the state leaders under federal training standards.
None of that conflicts with any of the statements quoting founding fathers on people owning guns.
