Concur. But here is one particularly relevant meaning from that period.
Why is that at all obvious? Well-regulated could also mean certain specifications for their weapons. It could mean physically fit and a clear assumption that they know how to shoot.
The definition of "regulated" is as ambiguous and multi-faceted as "militia". Whereas I am convined that "militia" is essentially everyone. I still am not sure what "regulated" actually implies. It isn't there for fun. It is not like the 2nd amendment is an exercise in verbosity. It has a well thought out place and meaning.
Perhaps I was a bit too hasty in just throwing out “trained”, as though it only applied to physical fitness.
By “trained well”, I mean a militia that has good combat organizational skills (can work cohesively as a squad in battle), can shoot accurately, repair their respective weapons, are physically fit, and so on.
"-- 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. --"
Eini; -- if only "well regulated" members of the militia are able to bear arms, are they any different from the army that has no opposition from an unarmed populace?
Your concern about the wording 'well regulated' is misplaced. -- In context - as was noted; "-- a well regulated militia is one that is trained well. --"
Why should the term imply anything beyond its obvious and well thought out meaning? -- Better yet, do you ~want~ it to imply something more?
Concur. But here is one particularly relevant meaning from that period.
In the context of 18th century military-speak, the term "well-regulated" meant that each firearm has had its sights properly aligned, and that the owner knew how to properly load and fire his weapon.