In what way do you feel it is badly written? It makes perfect grammatical sense to me. From these kind of debates, it seems the people who have trouble understanding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment are the ones who want to make the right to keep and bear arms dependent on being in a militia. It's the other way around ... the possibility of raising the militia, when needed, is dependent on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The whole idea was that the general population could be relied upon in times of crisis for the common defense - and they would bring their own guns. And those guns would be suitable for battle. Another misreading is when people try to impose the term 'well-regulated' to the other end of the sentence, to imply that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to be 'well-regulated.' But the term 'well-regulated' is a modifier of the noun 'militia', it doesn't affect the second part of the sentence at all. And that's besides the argument that 'well-regulated' in the late 1700's was a term meaning well equipped and/or in good working order.
The prefatory clause, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,' is a dependent clause. It does not stand alone as a sentence and so does not carry the core intent of the amendment.
The operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is a complete sentence all by itself. It is not dependent on there being a militia or being in a militia. It is a right that belongs to 'the people.'
The Supreme Court broke it all down in excruciating detail in the 2008 Heller decision. Check it out: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Which other parts of the Bill of Rights do you feel are horribly written?
.
If only i could upvote this.