Just the opposite. In Federalist 29, Hamilton explains:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice."
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need."
Which explains why the second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", not "armed individuals are necessary to the security of a free state".
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
IOW, we have to check at least once a year to see that the "unorganized" militia, the people at large in Hamilton's terms, have provided themselves with the proper arms and equipment.
Hamilton was arguing for creation of a select militia, something like today's National Guard, but he was not arguing against having a "general militia" as well. The Bill of Rights in general, and the second amendment in particular was created to assure the Anti-Federalist, that Federalist like Hamilton would be prevented from "misconstruction or abuse of" the Government's powers
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.Doing the math, Madison computes a regular army to be at most 1/25 of able-bodied men (30K), implying the total of able bodied men was 750K. He then asserts that opposing them would be a militia of 500K men (ie, the majority of all able-bodied men in the US).
The clear implication here is that Madison is envisioning the "militia" referred to in the 2nd Amendment as consisting of ALL able-bodied men, and thus the right to keep and bear arms would necessarily be extended to ALL the people
Note also that only half of the male population would be considered by Madison to be "able-bodied". This comes from the simple fact of life that battles in the age of single-shot muskets generally consisted of firing one mass volley, then charging with bayonets, which means that only those with sufficient upper-body strength to be able to fight with sword and bayonet would be credible members of the militia
Ah ... but even with that reasoning, the Founding Fathers _still_ wrote “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, not “the right of MILITIA MEMBERS ...”. Yes, Hamilton reasonably observed that trying to keep _everyone_ up to military par was nigh unto impossible, yet clearly the value of having _everyone_ at least part way there (to wit: armed and familiar therewith) is unquestionably useful to the security of a free state.