Hi Phila........welcome to TFF!
You raise a very interesting intrepation of the 2nd Amendment.....one that I hadn't considered before.
Generally speaking, there are two views on the meaning of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...."
On side holds that it refers to the State as being a governmental entity.....and therefore refers to a State regulated Milita. Some also hold that in today's terms, the National Guard is the direct descendent of the Revolutionally War Militias and therefore the term "militia" refers to the National Guard.
Others hold that, historically, the State Militias were comprised of various local and town Militias, and that every man between the ages of 17 to 50 (ages varied from locality to locality) was a member of that Militia....and that each man was expected to furnish his own firearm
and that every man is (to this day) a "member of the militia".
Historically speaking, by the time the first ten amendments were ratified in 1791, most State Militias were more organized than at the begining of the Revolutionary War, and the States did issue them firearms......however, even at that time, there were local Militias on the Western Frontier (which at that time was in the Western Pennsylvania/Eastern Ohio area down thru Kentucky and Tennessee areas) and they were expected to furnish their own firearms. Additionally, a firearm was absolutely necessary to defend each home and homestead (at this time against Indians, not the British) and to hunt to put meat on the table.....and that those who ratified the 2nd Amendment must've taken that into consideration, and meant that personal ownership of firearms was within the meaning of the of that amendment.
A third argument holds that all other rights listed in the 10 Amendments refers to idividual
rights and it would inconsistant to expect that the framers of the first 10 Amendments would make the 2nd Amendment an exception.
Interesting arguments all......