The second amendment is not poorly worded. When it was written, many citizens were dependent upon game for food. The founders didn't want laws passed to control the population that would less people to starve. Further, they lived in an area where conflict and skirmishes were common with Indigenous peoples, settlers from other nations (particularly the French) in some colonies, and disputes between settlements. Protective law enforcement was not available so they had a need to protect themselves that their contemporary British citizens did not have. Legal militias were to be called, run, and accountable to state governments. These modern groups that call themselves militias are not legal. They are domestic terrorists the same as the KKK, masquerading as militias for cover. I agree that this is a problem, but it was not caused by the 2nd amendment, but by turning a blind eye too long in dealing with them, due mostly to political expediency.
Due to deteriorating relationship with Britain and fear of authoritarian governmental overreach, mostly in the arena of religion, the Founders also wanted the government they were establishing to fear an armed insurgency as a means to help keep them in check and acting prudently when making laws.
We're obviously past that now as no militia today can stand in armed conflict against the government if they chose to turn on their own people. I'm not saying the government can't be overturned, just that it won't be through insurrection or war on home soil.
The second amendment was reasoned, well thought out, and clearly written. But, it was written. 200+ years ago. The founders couldn't imagine tanks, rapid repeating assault rifles, grenades, RPGs, nuclear weapons, etc. If they could, I feel confident, based on some of their other writings, they would have drafted the 2nd amendment completely differently. The problem with the second amendment is that it's outdated, not that it was poorly written or unclear.
There is a means of redress. However, the Constitution, while designed to be a living document, has been enshrined as infallible and fetishized, particularly the Bill of Rights. There simply hasn't been the political will to see it through and nowhere near enough public pressure forcing the issue. Hopefully, that's changing.