http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/district_of_columbia_v_heller/
Millers definition of the Militia, then, offers further
support for the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Attempting to draw a line between the ownership and use of Arms for private purposes and the ownership and use of Arms for militia purposes would have been an extremely silly exercise on the part of the First Congress if indeed the very survival of the militia depended on men who would bring their commonplace, private arms with them to muster. A ban on the use and ownership of weapons for private purposes, if allowed, would undoubtedly have had a deleterious, if not catastrophic, effect on the readiness of the militia for action. We do not see how one could believe that the First Congress, when crafting the Second Amendment, would have engaged in drawing such a foolish and impractical distinction, and we think the Miller Court recognized as much.
The second amendment says nothing about private purposes and makes no such distinction.