Actually, the best translation would be more like “Since a *well-equipped* militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be abridged”.
The original meaning of “regulated” circa the turn of the 18th/19th century meant having a standardized kit issue, and had nothing to do with “regulations” as we currently understand them.
In other words, one of the words of the amendment *has* changed meaning. Actually, militia has to some extent as well, since nowadays it generally means a paramilitary organization dedicated to internal national defense, whereas back when the amendment was written, it was generally understood to mean something akin to civilian “reserves” drawn voluntarily from the general populace.
You’re right, and I’ve heard that before. The writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were so much more precise in their language than we are now. They considered each word.
The debate had been over whether or not there should be a standing army, and if so how large it should be.
The colonies had been occupied by the English Army.
Without regulating a standing Army, sooner or later it will dominate the domestic scene--we see this worldwide--and become the government.
The security of a free state (a free country) depends on keeping its military subservient to the population, not the other way around, and to those ends, the posession of arms by the populace would guarantee that the nation's own armed forces, no matter how good militarily, would be less formidable than the entire (armed) populace.
Therein lies the aspect of control, or 'regulation' of the Militia.
Therefore, the Founders sought to maintain the balance of power in favor of the people by guaranteeing the right of the people to (keep and bear) arms not be infringed.
Keep in mind that freedom depends on govenrment being by the consent of the governed, of government being a servant of its citizens and not a master--a concept alien to most of the world, both then and now.
There is a discussion of this balance of arms in the Federalist papers in the discussion of whether or not there should be a standing (professional) Federal army. The discussion of the people bearing arns didn't have anything to do with hunting or even self defense, but the defense of the Republic against being taken over by rogue forces within, and the most likely usurpation of power would utilize the power of the Republic's own standing army against its own citizens.