I know there's a strong temptation to force one's fervent wishes onto that language. We do it all the time, at least I do. The wish is the mother of the interpretation. And the following is my interpretation only.

Whether one likes the effect or not, the words when considered in their context, their relationship to one another, the meaning is very, very clear. No interpretation is needed.

A well-regulated militia should have an unrestricted right to weapons. The implication is that others can be limited. There is no other reason for having those words.

A veteran is not necessarily in any "well-regulated militia". Veterans were a part of a well-regulated militia, and might stay active in a well-regulated militia, but veteran-hood doesn't tell anyone anything about their current status. A markswoman is not necessarily in any "well-regulated militia". If she were she'd be called by her rank or rate if active or a "veteran" if not.

Clearly the Founding Fathers believed the possession of arms could be regulated, either through membership in the militia or by laws for the remaining populace.

That's the wording. Change the wording if you don't like it, or let judges ignore the language. But it's usually wiser to acknowledge the truth even while ignoring it than to subject one's brain the the machinations necessary to avoid reality.

If I could send along the grain of salt with which to take this post I would. I certainly believe it but it's not for everyone.

Arf