WHAT? Now you're just making thing up.
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Requiring the citizenry to "be under arms" would be a real grievance. Besides, even if every man woman and child HAD a weapon, Hamilton admits that, "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it."
So what's the point of being armed? When called into service, a Militia member had SIX MONTHS to acquire a smooth-bore musket. If he already had a weapon at home for self defense and hunting, more than likely it was a rifle. Accurate, but useless for the rapid volley fire that the Militia used.
"The militia was to be select group of the nation able to respond quickly in time of need."
The well regulated Militia. That's who the second amendment protected because they were necessary to the security of a free state..
That is an argument against requiring the citizens to be armed. That is different from not permitting them to be armed.
a Militia member had SIX MONTHS to acquire a smooth-bore musket
That was not a requirement of all militias.