No, no it does not.
it specifically says the right of the PEOPLE!!!!
It is to defend oneself from governments who are out of control, either from the outside or from within.
court precedents, and legal and historical interpretation, that all able-bodied persons, explicitly those between the ages of 17 and 45, are members of the Federal unorganized militia, except members of the organized state guards (for example, State Defense Forces which exist in about two dozen states), the National Guards of the various states (which also serve as a part of the National Guard of the United States, a military reserve subject to nationalization by the President of the United States), and certain government officials. An "organized citizen militia" must be created under the constitution itself and/or the laws of a state.
the individual right to own firearms is guaranteed by the Constitution, but the right to own firearms is not at all dependent upon the militia clause. The militia clause of the Second Amendment merely adds to the reason for the right, which is a common law right rooted in the right of protection of self, family and community.
and every "strict constructionist" (you know, conservative?) constitutional scholar who interprets the 2nd amendment feels that way.
Now if you are a "living constitution" advocate, like the Dims, you take the opposing view.
which one are YOU?
I think Grut said that tongue in cheek.
Jeez, take a deep breath.