The "problem" is in the intended relationship between the two clauses.

Does it mean that the right shall not be infringed *solely* because of the need for a well regulated militia? Or because that need is just one good reason?

The Supreme Court has decided on the latter interpretation. Had the Founders meant otherwise, it would have been easy enough to be more specific, like granting the right only to active members of such a militia.

And homicidal shootings were so rare in the eighteenth century, when firearms were clumsy, that the Founders may not have considered them a serious objection to the right to hunt and defend onself without interference.

Anyway, "the right of the people...shall not be infringed" seems pretty unambiguous.