I mean, it's not some special wisdom I alone possess; the historical facts are what they are 
If you look at the wording of most similar laws passed by the states at the time and the way that language would've been widely interpreted at the time, then the inescapable conclusion is that the Second Amendment referred specifically to state militias and did not create any sort of Constitutional right for private individuals to own guns, much less to do so without substantial government regulation. What laws do you have in mind? The PA Constitution of 1776 has:
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
That seems to be pretty clearly a clearly worded defense of the individual right to bear arms, with both individual self-defense and militia purposes in mind. And it emphasizes the militia purpose not as a contrast to individual rights, but as a contrast to maintaining a professional army.
Poll
