Oh, not the right of the people to arm bears?

Since the dependent clause, "A well-regulated militia, being essential....." stipulates something other than a willy-nilly, ragtag bunch of gun toters, the wording seems to suggest that the arming of military or paramilitary functions of the state was the intent. However, the revolution was fought by a ragtag bunch of citizen soldiers, not a true army in the normal sense. Because our world is so different from the world of 1789, ought we to view our needs in the same way? As a personal aside, I'm a gun owner myself, but not an NRA type gun owner. I do believe that since the intent of the Second Ammendment was the maintenance of freedom, certain people must be enjoined from gun ownership. Those not well-trained in their proper use have no business with them, as they constitute a danger to themselves and others. Of course, criminals must be barred from gun possession, but how does one stop such possession? Shall we execute every person who commits a crime with a gun? Will we be invaded by gun-toting troops, or will more sophisticated weaponry be brought to bear, as was the case on 9/11? Oh - this is getting into the political arena, so I'd better shut up!