Just because someone is willing to say it means something other than what it says doesn't automatically mean that it's unclear. That's just sloppy logic.
So can you explain Tex's assertion , he thinks that the amendment is to make the government fear the people , a cornerstone of his theory of democracy is the threat of armed rebellion against the government .
Now if the government was in fear of an insurrection by armed people , what provision does the constitution contain to deal with exactly that issue ?
Some people wish to take one tiny element of a small portion of a document and claim implicitly that it has only one meaning , ignoring that it must be taken together with all provisions relating to it in the document .