I agree. I am still hung up on the "well-regulated" part however. I have heard some arguments that the meaning of "regulated" has changed over the centuries and I can understand but am not 100% convinced.
What is your take on the "regulation" requirement?
Obviously, a well-regulated militia is one that is trained well.
What is your take on the "regulation" requirement?
It's easier to understand when you consider the historical context in which it was written. The colonies had just defeated the British militarily, but that victory had not come easily, for obvious reasons and unobvious ones---one of the latter being that it was very difficult to keep an irregular army (continentals + militia) supplied and on the field of battle. Think of it---there were no standards at all---militiamen, especially, carried their own weapons, meaning that those could be any caliber at all . . . same with heavy pieces, etc. Keeping this sort of rag-tag force on the field was a logistical nightmare.
Well-regulated, in the sense that it applies to the militia phrase of the Second Amendment, means well-ordered, so that such a force would be easier to supply and maintain on a field of battle. Not only in terms of supply, mind you, but in chain of command, too. Remember, also, that the Federal government planned to maintain a skeletal standing army (and no Navy at all), so the ability to whip the militias into a fighting force in the least amount of time was paramount. Hence, the requirement that the militia be well-regulated.
JM.02
Well-regulated...well equipped and functioning in a proper manner