You're missing a a couple.
The 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Vague, vague, vague! "respecting an establishment of religion."
Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"--thanks for mucking up the waters with superfluous, unnecessary qualification/justification. If the right to bear arms is absolute, then for crying out loud why not say so? Why justify it with this talk of militias and security of a free state--obviously leads to misconstruction.
So yeah, other than Amendment 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10, the Bill of Rights is pretty solid, lol.
Seems pretty clear to me. It's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." And the Constitution makes very clear who "the people" are. For instance, "the people" elect the president and their representatives.
Some say that the 2nd amendment's referral to a "Militia" means that only the military has a right to bear arms that cannot be infringed. But to come to that conclusion, you must equate the "Militia" with "the people."
Clearly it is not the military alone who elects the president or our representatives; "the people" are the citizens of the U.S.
And if the founders really meant that only the military, and not the citizens, have a right to bear arms, then that would be very silly. Were the Founders afraid the Congress might one day prohibit the army from bearing arms? What country ever made it illegal for its armed forces to bear arms?
You really have to ignore the obvious to claim that the 2nd amendment is vague, IMO.