You fell into Tom's trap several posts ago, Bowser. The Commerce Clause isn't irrelevant, though the bargain you were offered was a horrible one indeed: He (on behalf of rightwingerdom) would give up the archaic right to own a musket in return for a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution's Commerce Clause that would satisfy the right's wet dream of destroying the rationale for the Federal Government to do anything except maintain a standing army.

Oh wait, the Founders didn't like the idea of a standing army, either. They preferred to follow the model of the Athenian citizen-soldier, who owned his own armor and weapons and trained privately, forever standing by to defend the nation. Militias, in other words. Well-regulated militias...

The second amendment isn't about sport hunting or self-defense. It, in conjunction with Constitutional obstacles to a standing army such as the biannual refunding, is meant to discourage standing armies in favor of Athenian-style citizen-militias.

The world's kind of passed beyond the Founders' good intentions. National defense through self-equipped militias is a pretty silly idea today. Would fighter pilots have to buy their own jets? Who buys the tanks, and do their owners get to use them during the morning commute? And most important of all, who gets to own the nukes?

Knowing the intellectual currents at the time of the Founders, and their own expressed admiration for Ancient Greece, I'd say that the clear meaning of the second amendment isn't all that hard to puzzle out. And once understood, it's the most out-moded and obsolete part of the entire Constitution, being kept alive only through deliberate misinterpretation to serve a partisan end the Founders never intended.

Edited to change "avoid" to "discourage" in the third paragraph. It was driving me crazy.