It's not bad but they miss two cogent points.

The archaic definition of "well-regulated" has nothing to do with laws or bureaucratic regulations. In the 1700s it meant smooth or well practiced.

The second is that according to the US Code, there is an organized militia, commonly the National Guard, and an unorganized militia; basicly anyone capable of bearing arms in defense of home & country. The ‘militia’ mentioned in the Second Amendment is you & me.

In modern parlance, the authors of the Second Amendment said that since proficient shooters are necessary to the defense of a free state, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

I watched this online recently and thought it was well done.

I dunno, I think I like Penn's interpretation better than some of the others.

I thought the show was pretty one-sided. They claimed to have two anti-gun advocates, and one dude in the middle. The only one they really excerpted though was the guy pushing for total elimination of guns. They filmed him in such a way to make him look flaky. The other anti-gun advocate got barely 3 sentences in. On the other side of the debate: two pro-gun people, one pro-gun business owner, and a man who thought he was George Washington.

They promoted the view they personally held. They didn't try to equitably present the facts.