The term doesn't refer to being under the control of a government.
Even if the term DOES mean “under control of the government”, it still works our way.
A valid interpretation of the 2ndA amounts to “even though we grudgingly acknowledge a standing army is necessary, the people STILL have an inalienable right to own military weapons”. The Founding Fathers disliked the idea of a standing army, but realized one was necessary (armed populace is great in theory, but not reliable come organized international warfare). In granting the government the power to raise and maintain a standing army, they clarified that doing so in no way justified disarming the populace.
The awkward wording makes more sense this way, and still comes to the same conclusion.
In the usage of the 18th century, ‘regulated’ had a somewhat different meaning. A definition included in a 1980 edition of the Random House College Dictionary shows of troops: properly disciplined. From other writings at the time there was a great concern that the militia be well equipped and knowledgeable in the use of their arms. That pre-supposes the militia (defined as all of the people) have access to arms.
Agreed.
REGULATE
control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly: a hormone which regulates metabolism
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/regulate?q=regulated
Controlled militia or Maintained militia. “Maintained” is the logical usage in the context of the RKBA.
Thanks for pointing that out.