It was not written poorly on purpose. It was just written poorly. I'd argue it's pretty obvious when observing historical context. Militias were how nations defended themselves largely, and it's how the US did. The second amendment was in order to allow for this to be true. If this weren't the case, why would the even include the first half? They would just say "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." At best, the amendment implies gun ownership should be seen as part of being a part of a well regulated militia, not primarily for personal use.

However, historical context of gun ownership is important. That's where the 9th amendment (my favorite and probably the most important, though underused) comes in.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The right of personal gun ownership has been historically held by the people, so there needs to be good arguments to limit it. I think these arguments exist.