I think the best way to understand the framers intent is to understand the historical underpins of the bill of rights. Unfortunately, historical scholarship has been hijacked for ideological purposes in this bitter argument.
Ever heard of the federalist and anti-federalists? If you haven’t... it is because of their disagreements that we have the bill of rights (closely associated with federalism).
The inclusion of an amendment protecting the right to bear arms was a necessary concession to moderate Anti-Federalists who feared that the power of the federal government might threaten the states. Essentially, the 2nd amendment was designed to reaffirm state control of the militia and neutralize any fear that the militia might be disarmed by the U.S. government.
It was the protection of states' rights, not individual rights, that prompted the inclusion of the Second Amendment. It, like other checks and balances included in the Constitution and Bill of rights, is a final check on potential tyranny on behalf of the US government.
Bearing arms in the militia is legally distinct from bearing or carrying a gun in self defense. Reinterpreting the 2nd Amendment as an individual right distorts history for ideological purposes. It also turns the Bill of Rights into a constitutional etch-a-sketch in which the 2nd amendment's preamble, tying the purpose of the amendment to the preservation of a well-regulated militia, can be erased by ideological nonsense.
But, this only deals with whether Congress CAN regulate arms that are not being used for the people's duty to participate in the militia. This doesn't say that Congress HAS to regulate your made-up, err... god-given right to have weapons.
I think personal arms should be regulated (i.e. handguns, school zones, concealment, etc...), but I also think that some Texas farmer shouldn't be forced to hand over his rifle just because the government can regulate it. Both sides' main concerns can be adequately provided for through appropriate legislation.