"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Obviously, the Founding Fathers found it important that there be a well-regulated militia, in addition to what I said. What's the confusion?
And where did I say that all the 2nd Amendment does is guarantee the right to bear arms? I never said that. I said that it's explicitly stated, which it is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Are you trying to say that only militias are guaranteed arms in the 2nd Amendment?
If the arms have nothing to do with a militia (as mentioned in Miller), or if the keeping of arms has nothing to do with training or exercising with a militia (as ruled in Silveira v Lockyer), the federal courts have ruled (with the exception of Emerson) that their individual ownership is not protected by the second amendment.
It is your state constitution that protects your individual rights. The second amendment affords no protection.