You're talking about the part that isn't clear. I was talking about the part that is clear, and that's who are 'the people'. You said it's not clear who has the right to own guns, when it clearly says the right of the people, so you seemed to be doubting who are the people. The reason the right of the people must not be infringed is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That's the muddy part, especially in today's age when militia groups give a new meaning to the word and are watched by the government like terrorist organizations.
Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.
Is the first part of the sentence a qualifier for the second part of the sentence, or is it a separate statement? If you want to make two separate statements there are ways of doing that, and people with a reasonable grasp of clear communication in the English language know that if you want to clearly communicate a couple of independent concepts, you don't just whack 'em in the same sentence with a comma in the middle (lots of sentences have commas, it's not really a "forget about the first part of the sentence, get ready for clause 2" kinda thing).
"The people". Well, since the same sentence started out talking about well-regulated militias, wouldn't that imply that "the people" means "the people who are part of a well-regulated militia". It doesn't say "the people of the United States of America" as other parts of the constitution do when they mean "the people of...". I don't actually believe that << BUT if I really wanted to believe that is what it meant, I'm sure I could convince myself of that. That is the whole point, the way that the language is structured leads the door open for that sentece to be interpreted in many different ways.
"Bear arms". You can be armed with a sword, you can be armed with a potato gun, you can be armed with a stick. It seems to have evolved to mean "any type of gun, but not a cannon or a tank".