You haven't posted ANYTHING from the SCOTUS. I posted their interpretation of "well-regulated" direct from their decision.<quoted text>
Unless you have ANYTHING to refute what the SCOTUS ruled this discussion is over.
Here it is again;
"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”:“To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”)."
When you find something that refutes that definition, let us know. All you have provided as a source is from the LOC that had nothing to do with the case or deciding it...3rd party by definition.