Well regulated meant "trained and equipped to a standard sufficient for supporting and fighting alongside professional soldiers if necessary" basically.
Also: ha ha ha, militias are hardly illegal, holy shit who told you that?
Look, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say I need a reason to bear arms. It just says not to infringe upon it. And with excessive regulations on firearms, there is a very good chance that when a person feels unsafe, they WON'T be able to get a firearm to protect themselves. The waiting time on handguns is about 6 months. If something happens and a person is now afraid for their life, they want their gun TODAY. Ergo, why I'm so pissy about the "why" question, as it has and will be used to restrict gun ownership, sometimes unfairly.
Well, no, following the 2008 decision in Heller it has been treated as a positive right delegated to individuals to own and carry all sorts of absurdly lethal and frankly impossible to imagine weapons when it was written, rather than a prohibition against the federal government trying to limit the ability of local and state governments to form and train militias.
That whole personal freedom to own guns bullshit only really even showed up around the civil rights era anyways, funny how that worked out huh, especially because you got life FUCKED if you think the racist ass slave owning pieces of shit in the southern states would have EVER ratified the 2nd amendment if they thought it meant free black men could own guns.
Like, seriously dude, if you think that is the case, maybe check where the foundation of this idea you have came from, see what motivation whoever was pushing it may have had to distort the way things are interpreted?