That’s the one. It was used to go after these militias.
Since the state’s righters were the ones the BoR was created to mollify I have no doubt that the word meant “state” which were the components of the Union. There was no application to the larger body since the states could and did violate all those rights mentioned under the BoR for decades after its writing. Besides the writers understood that militias were no match for professional armies so they were not depending upon them.
See "Free State," Straight Outta Blackstone
Also, Madison originally drafted the amendment using the phrase, "a free country."
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
-- There was no application to the larger body since the states could and did violate all those rights mentioned under the BoR for decades after its writing. --
I hold the opposite view in both regards: that the second amendment aims to curtail the operation of the federal government; and that the states could not and did not disarm the general populace. I've read references that purport to show how states prevented people from being armed, but the cites are to laws that regulate the discharge of weapons, not the ownership or carrying of them. But I'm open to learning more, and look forward to citations to "states ... did violate [RKBA]." My impression is that, other than the slave/freeman distinction, states did not prohibit keeping and/or bearing of arms until the 20th century.
-- Besides the writers understood that militias were no match for professional armies so they were not depending upon them. --
The drafters did not want the US to obtain or maintain a standing army, but agreed that the constitution provides for the feds to raise and support Armies.