This statement was one man's opinion. He was certainly a patriot, but he wasn't a Founder or political figure.
Whatever. Arms into the hands of all American males between the ages of eighteen and forty-five? Hey, that WAS the militia. Who else was the second amendment to protect? Slaves? Yeah, right. Women, children, Indians, foreigners?
But the sentence following your cite is noteworthy.
"While late eighteenth-century Americans distinguished between the individual's right to possess arms and the need for a militia in which to bear them, more often than not they considered these rights inseparable."
"Bear" had a military connotation. Not just to carry arms, but to carry them into battle. Meaning the second amendment was referring to the collective right of a militia rather than an individual right.
If that's true.
Can't bear arms against burglars, muggers, rapists and would be murderers ? The writers of the Pennsylvania Constitution beg to differ. (The language predates that of the second amendment,).
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Also that of the writers of the Vermont Constitution
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
The original Constitution of the Texas Republic also mentioned bearing arms for defense of self:
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. " Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
So I'd say your contention that "bear arms" has or had a strictly martial connotation in the period is demolished.