It's unambiguous in the sense that "not infringed" is the norm. That means further regulations must not be true infringements. If you're not a criminal, you still get to own a gun, regardless of the later-legislated paperwork and so on, as long as the paperwork doesn't infringe on your right to own one.

At least that's how I see it. One could argue that even licensing is an "infringement" of Constitutional rights, but two hundred years of reasoned opinion would seem to deny that assertion.

Not that I expect it, but a properly argued suit before the Supreme Court could conceivably change things, now or a hundred years from now. That's how the rule of law works.