Regulated could mean controlled or restricted or it could mean ordered or even prepared. Like we need “regulars” who know how to use weapons. If we’re honest it’s an oddly worded provision that is clunky to understand or consistently interpret. What should be clear is that it it’s not organized around or focused on individual personal protection from other individuals.

However if we expand and read it’s true meaning it could be that we come to the conclusion that any restriction on personal weaponry is problematic because the “militia” of the people need to have sufficient weapons to stand up to a tyrannical government which would mean the people can be restricted things like tanks, fighter jets, and military ordinance. Not saying that’s the correct conclusion but that’s at least one reasonable reading that you could take from the seeming purpose of the amendment, especially given the context of the time it was written.

I thoughtful discussion and debate around the purposes, intent and current application of the second amendment is really needed. Unfortunately we can’t seem to do that about the second amendment or really anything ever.