The Second Amendment is pretty unequivocal, using the meanings of the words at the time the Bill of Rights was drawn up.
All able-bodied citizens of the United States of America are by definition members of the ultimate militia, defense of the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is the duty and responsibility of every citizen to maintain that degree of freedom and God-given right of personal defense. And to that end, I would strongly support a movement to make the care, feeding, grooming and proper respect for ALL sidearms a mandatory course of instruction for ALL children of legal US citizens of the age of fourteen and above, including familiarization fire and target practice on an annual basis. Voluntary courses of instruction may be given to children as young as the age of six, so we do not have the incidences of a “toddler playing with guns”, that worry Herself so much, because of the much tighter parental control in the home.
And what part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, does Herself or any of her minions not understand?
Seems to me it's the first part: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", what those words include and exclude.
Note that the author states if "you are driving with a gun to a bank with the intent to rob it, then you have crossed into the criminal use of a firearm, and are not protected by the Second Amendment". That would mean that, if not keeping, bearing an arm with criminal intent is not covered by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and by the author's logic, laws against doing so would not be an infringement.