Yes, as has been mentioned, things were very different when the 2nd amendment was drafted. And, oh how gun control advocates love using that fact when it benefits their argument, and omit it when it doesn't.
The reason it's a worst sentence ever written is simply the mention of a militia. Well, what were the militia's made up of? Citizens of US states. Why did they think it so important to have militia's? So that the citizenry would not be defenseless against their government should it become tyrannical. As well as to have an armed population should the US be invaded. Not to mention, possibly, the most important reason of a person's right to defend themselves, their property, and others.
But, the fact that the wording is poorly crafted & not suited for today should not override the common sense behind the meaning of the amendment. Also, how does "right to bear arms" not mean any and all arms? It does not say, "the right to bear musket's & cannon's". If, for example, a US president made a 'call to arms' to US citizens to fight an invading force, do you mean to say they would be expected to only bring any gun they have?
Of course not.
Worthy of further note, is the fact that most involved in the drafting process believed all people should be afforded the rights of the Law of Nature, which are 'endowed by the Creator', to use their wording.
"It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist before-hand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense."
- Frederic Bastiat (The Law) 1850