You have no justification for suggesting that a "poorly-regulated" Militia was not also a benificiary of the Second Amendment. The term "well-regulated" does not mean government controlled. One requirement of a "well-regulated" Militia is that its members be well-armed. That goal was to be advanced by ensuring that the government could not disarm the people, regardless of their membership in a Militia.
You persist in pretending that arms such as the cannon used to rescue Boston from occupation just magically appeard from some government warehouse somewhere. In fact, these cannon were taken by force from the existing government of the time from Fort Ticonderoga by PEOPLE who were in rebellion against their own government.
Other than the fact that the second amendment identfies, specifically, a "well regulated Militia", no.
So you're saying the Founders were just kidding when they wrote that? They really meant "any militia", and we're reading way too much into it by taking what they said literally? That "well regulated" was desired, not required?
I have every justification.
"The term "well-regulated" does not mean government controlled."
The term well regulated means trained, disciplined, armed and accoutered with officers appointed by the state. If you object to that definition, I'm interested in hearing yours.
"You persist in pretending that arms such as the cannon used to rescue Boston from occupation just magically appeard from some government warehouse somewhere."
My definition of "arms" in the second amendment is any weapon deemed necessary by each state to form a well regulated state Militia.