Drawn into a Debate

Looks like there's some discussion going on and my handle came up:

I'm afraid to get involved, because CSGV might criticize me by calling me "white" again. I will venture this before I need to get back to  work:

Yes, of course the militia was intended to be "well regulated" when called into service. Members could be checked out to make sure the armaments they brought were as required. That said nothing about what they left at home, and what the people could keep and bear when not mustered. As Hamilton noted:

“To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped…”

Item two, as long as we're going to be bringing up preambles, let's make sure we don't forget the one  that preceded the Bill of Rights, which made a point of explaining:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Anyone who does not concede 2A is a "restrictive clause" on government is quite simply a liar.