We never know when a militia may need to be called into service. Thus, keeping and bearing arms will make that far more feasible
So I assume that if you are a fire arms owner you belong to a "well regulated militia." If so, in what manner is your militia well regulated? After all, well regulated militias aren't created over night (if you've been in the armed forces you'll know exactly what I'm talking about). So in order to have well regulated militias they would have to be current, on-going, organizations. Not something assembled when the need demands. Got a lot of well regulated militias in your neck of the woods? And of course, whatever form they take, I'm certain they would not be welcoming granny and her squirrel gun.
Then there's a little interesting piece of info on militias in the USA.
Proponents [of militias] describe a key element in the concept of "militia" was that to be "genuine" it not be a "select militia", composed of an unrepresentative subset of the population. This was an argument presented in the ratification debates.
The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock....
Note the age limit and requirements to be enrolled in a militia.
Moreover.
Following the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure defintion of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence broadened once again. The court's opinion made explicit, in it's obiter dicta, that
the term "militia", as used in colonial times, and still today in this originalist decision, included both the Federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States. "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range" ... Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23). [48
source
All of which excludes thousands upon thousands of gun owners. In other words, if you don't qualify for the militia, the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary . . ." does not afford you the right to own a fire arm---the recent ruling of the court not withstanding.
In any case, am I now to assume that you agree that the reason for the phrase "
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," was to indicate who fell under the protection of the amendment: only those who are members of such a militia? If not, then we're back to square one as to the reason for the phrase's existence.
