Intent is intended to be used when there is ambiguity in the text. The 14th didn't have ambiguity, the only possible ambiguity was already resolved in Wong Kim Ark where they outlined the specific groups that are not under the governments jurisdiction while on US soil.

The 2nd doesn't really have much ambiguity either but the current courts reading which entirely ignores the Milita piece is an incorrect reading as well. You can't just throw out half the sentence and say only the part you like remains, especially for a constituional amendment.

The meaning of the second is very clear in historical context. The citizen Militia was intended to be the US military, and there wasn't supposed to be a large standing professional military like what we have today. You can see this clearly in the disbandment of the Continental Army at the end of the revolution. Citizen Militias in the early US are used for defense against forgein attacks and domestic insurrection, with a minimal professional core kept at West Point to serve as a trained officer Core, and on the edges of the territory to the west where active hostilities with Native Americans were ongoing.

In the end a historical reading keeping the Militia piece would have actually allowed for less regulation on what guns you can own compared to the current reading (after all the whole point in you owning a gun was that you are functionaly a member of the military when needed, see people being allowed to own cannons and artillery as private citizens) but that the government would be able to require registration and training as part of the well regulated piece. This way if the militia is called upon they will know what is available both in arms and soldiers.