Let us change a part of the First

From this:

Make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

To this:

In order to preserve an informed public the people shall have the right to own tools of speech

The second justifies the ownership of books, conditional on a result.  Note the difference in ambiguity? OK, we notice the difference in ambiguity in the Seoond, we can compare the first and Second. The inserted clause 'To provide for a regulated milita ...". There is no inserted clause in the first.  That means something:

1) It means that if you cannot distinguish between the two you are likely an illiterate bum.
2) It means all those ignorant lawyers defending the second are barking up the wrong tree. The second will be always interpreted with that clause as long as the ambiguity allows, that is a legal, Constitutional outcome, the ambiguity is there for a reason. That amendment is meant to be interpreted according to the current definition of regulated militia, and the arms they use.  

NRA nuts have half a right and they are also pain in the ass illiterate bums.