After all, the Second Amendment stressed the need for a "well-regulated" militia as necessary to the security of a free state.

With no "well-regulated militia" in the 18th-century sense, why doesn't the uninfringeability of the right predicated upon it vanish?

Instead, he focused on the words "well-regulated militia."

To say that this weapon is part of any well-regulated militia is utter nonsense.

Until now, the army had been a well-trained, well-regulated militia drawn from all able-bodied, land-owning male citizens.

The Second Amendment protects gun ownership (though it actually refers to "a well-regulated militia").

In that case, the court specified that the shotgun had "no reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

American Legion Magazine "A well-regulated militia" (state defense forces), 2008.

The general question here is, "Does the right pertain to only organized, well-regulated militias or all citizens?"

Much of the work is devoted to analyzing the amendment's first clause dealing with a well-regulated militia.