Apparently I was not making my position clear. I was not intending to suggest that gun ownership was restricted to membership in the militia. Rather, I was noting that gun ownership was required of militia members - although not personal possession, as most militias provided for armories for the storage of firearms and assorted accoutrements for the convenience of their members.

That being said, there is no question that there is an explicit connection between gun ownership and the establishment of militias - as that is what the Amendment specifically says. Reading out "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," from the text of the Amendment does historical and structural violence to the Constitution itself. It happens to be the only Amendment so addressed which must have significance and cannot in good conscience be ignored.

offtopic As an aside, of more significance to individual rights, and more often ignored by the Courts, Congress and the President, is the Ninth Amendment, which states"
Quote
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That, to me, is the starting point for many discussions - for example regarding the right to privacy which certain right-wing Justices would like to elide from the Constitution.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich