Treat? I don't understand your question.
The Militia Act, written one year after the Bill of Rights was ratified, detailed what was expected of state militias -- organization, armament, training, etc. That is what was meant by a well regulated militia.
I doubt that; if it had, the Act would have used the phrase.
Then why enumerate RKBA as a right in the BoR? Why bother, if the "right" evaporates when neglected by any/all levels of government?
I've followed your reasoning for a long time (months/years), and am curious why you are so hell-bent on crushing the notion of RKBA as an individual right - especially as "militia" is practically nonexistent as a local/state/federal entity.
The BoR lists individual rights of the people (yes, the 2nd actually says "the people", not "the states") which the feds cannot intrude on. The 2nd makes plain that to _have_ a "well-regulated militia" (as differentiated from a standing army) the people must be able to arm themselves.
You put a LOT of effort into limiting RKBA into oblivion.
I'd like to understand why.