[robertpaulsen]

"Regulated does not mean organized. Well regulated at the time, meant well-trained."

See? I learn something every day.

So you're saying the Founding Fathers were referring to a bunch of unorganized guys, no leadership, no chain of command, who were highly trained and knew how to shoot.

That's what they meant by a "well regulated Militia". I suppose you have some cites, some links, some quotes, that back you up?

[ctdonath2]

“What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
~George Mason, 1788

If they have nothing to shoot, then being organized, led and commanded doesn’t do any good.
You can’t achieve a “well-regulated militia” unless the whole people have a right to keep and bear arms.

[Texas Federalist]

That's what they meant by a "well regulated Militia". I suppose you have some cites, some links, some quotes, that back you up?

Try the Oxford dictionary, obsolete definition dating back to 1690 - "Regulated" has an obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war."

But of course this is all a red herring argument because the preface does not even purport to limit the amendment. I'm just speaking hypothetically that, even if it did, you are still wrong. There is no serious academic thought that remains in favor of a collective rights view of the Second Amendment. Even Lawrence Tribe agrees with you.