Are you a Constitutional scholar? Because they can’t seem to reach that conclusion. SCOTUS disagreed with you, for example.
The Second Amendment predates the formation of state militias, so it clearly applies to those individuals that might, when called upon, form a militia. There wasn’t even a standing Army back in those days.
The Militia Acts of 1792 actually pronounce that it is the responsibility of every able bodied white male between the ages of [can’t remember the exact ages, too lazy to look it up] to own a serviceable firearm for militia use. It was basically a draft, except bring your own gun was the rule.
You can’t say that the Second Amendment only applies to state militias when they lacked the means of arming their soldiers. The law was that a militiaman brought his own equipment, including a firearm, and if he didn’t, he was subject to punishment.
Go read the Milita Acts.
And “well regulated” doesn’t mean bureaucratic. It means functional and efficient. A well regulated militia would have been drilled and practiced, equipped and properly staffed. Not bound by red tape.
A well regulated militia, = A useful fighting force
Being necessary to the security of a free state = Is sometimes needed for the good of all
The Right to keep and bear arms = so the right to own guns and other arms
Shall not be infringed = shall not be infringed.