That's a crock of #^%$#. I support the literal reading of the Second, and the original intent of the people who wrote it. But when I discuss it with some around here, the moment I get to the word "regulated", you all want to interpret that ONE WORD as something other than "relating to regulations" and call your reading a "literal" reading.
"but if I ping every libertarian freeper I know of and ask their opinion"
So, your idea of libertarianism has a certain amount of Borg injected into it?
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
"Regulated: In the context of government and public services regulation (as a process) is the control of something by rules, as opposed to its prohibition."
"Literal interpretation" is an oxymoron. You can either believe in the literal reading of the Amendment, or in an interpretation of the Amendment, but not both. And if you support a literal reading, you don't need an 8,000 word essay to explain what it means.
Last but certainly not least, you either support the Framer's original intent when writing the Constitution and the BOR, or the more modern "interpretation" of it.
Originally, the Framers wrote a Constitution to describe the powers granted to the Federal government, and the restrictions placed upon it, and they made it very clear that whatever powers weren't granted to the Federal government by the Constitution and the BOR, or prohibited to them by the same, fell to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, the people who wrote the Constitution and the BOR intended the grant of powers and the consequent restrictions to be applied to the Fed, not to any other level of government.
Since then, that has been changed by the Courts.
Can the Federal government write laws restricting gun ownership?
Not according to the Constitution.
Can State governments regulate gun ownership?
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits them from doing so.
Finally, the Constitution of every State upholds the right of the people to bear arms, so while they may "regulate" gun ownership, they can't prohibit it.
No one has the right to take my guns from me, as long as I am a law-abiding citizen.
We already duked this whole 2nd Amendment thing out last month and parted ways respectfully. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.
"Can State governments regulate gun ownership?
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits them from doing so."
In fact it does
Article VI, Section III
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.