[vincentfreeman]

"The second is unqualified in scope or range and fairly strongly worded."

Correct. The founders wanted to protect the state Militia from federal infringement in no uncertain terms. There are no limitations or restrictions in the second amendment and none are necessary.

However, if one interprets the second amendment as protecting an individual right outside of the Militia, well, that leads to the discovery of limitations and restrictions on arms and keeping and bearing that I don't see.

I agree with you. The second amendment should be formally amended if, for example, "arms" are to be limited to semi-auto rifles, shotguns and hanguns.

[Question_Assumptions]

I don't think the argument that the 2nd Amendment was intended to be limited to militias only is supportable either by the wording of the amendment (which clearly places the right with "the people") nor the early drafts or sources of the Bill of Rights (for example, if you look at early drafts of the 1st Amendment, they include explanatory clauses, like the militia clause, explaining why freedom of speech is important. I think it's hard to read "people" as anything but an individual right.