I understand what you are saying here. But this is the point I was trying to bring up before " that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government."
If it needs to be well regulated, just not by the national government, who is left but the state government?
You argued that the case I pulled up before was interpreted to intentionally manipulate the 2nd amendment to something they wanted it to mean, but knew it didn't mean.
In Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."
That case should make it pretty clear that there was no implied intention whatsoever to apply the Bill of Rights to states when it was written. A unanimous ruling is a good indication that there was no controversy in the decision. The Bill of Rights was undoubtedly written to restrict national power, not state power.
This is how militia was defined in "A Dictionary Of The English Language" published in 1756
https://play.google.com/store/books/...d=fcVEAAAAcAAJ
MILITIA. f. [Latin.] The trainbands ; the standing force of a nation.
TRAINBANDS. / The militia ; the part of a community trained to martial exercise.
That was how it was defined when the constitution was written. The militia were the trainbands who were the part of the community. They were trained.
Threaded Mode