That isn't what I said. The expression "well-regulated" was likely a reference to the type of training needed to make a group of soldiers with muzzle loaders an effective fighting force. Without that training, they would not be as effective. It's not about a specific formation but about training.
If that was the intent, it was never followed; the states never maintained permanent militias with ongoing training regimes, to my knowledge. Actually, the nation struggled to fund even the temporary associations they tried to levy, in the early years. They owed huge debts to their existing veterans, and raising militias to combat enemies internal or external proved a massive and persistent problem until the Civil War era.
There is nothing in the amendment about personal use, although the Heller decision extended the meaning to cover that implied interpretation. Weapons could be "kept", but not necessarily at home. That is what armories were used for. Nothing in there about restrictions or lack thereof on private ownership. State governments could have imposed standards on the type of guns to be used by the militia.
It's clear enough that military, not personal recreational use, is the intended focus of this Amendment; I think we agree on that much. I do think most communities assumed a store of weapons at home, though. This is implied by the documents I've read from the time, which due to my genealogy addiction, is more than a few. I think most frontier households had arms in the home and used them regularly (though more for animal defense than human). Perhaps less true of urban populations. But even the cities weren't really organized the same way they are now, especially not where coercive force was concerned. Most communities had no formal police or military structure beyond local voluntary organizations that functioned more like clubs than armies. If an actual war started, the state or nation paid you on a defined contract and assumed the cost of training alongside the year-and-day of your service. You could be conscripted without your consent, but not for longer than your term of service, and only in an emergency situation.
I also don't think the organization of the militia is as such the purpose of the Second, since that would be superfluous; the main document already establishes the right of the Congress to oversee the creation and regulation of the militias. The Bill of Rights is about personal, not institutional rights. I do not think it is credible therefore to assert that this Amendment was
only meant to apply to collective armories; personal gun ownership has to have been its intended target. But I do agree that the use of arms they were thinking about was participation in the militias, not hanging out at the shooting range with the boys, shooting primary schoolers for the lulz, or collecting guns for their own sake.
Honestly, I think the entire country would be better off following the model of some of European nations in which all adult citizens have mandatory firearm training and perhaps the responsibility to maintain a government-provided rifle, but otherwise have fairly limited and clearly regulated gun rights beyond what is necesary to maintain the citizen militia / conscription readiness. But the immovable our citizens are already heavily armed, and public opinion is not in favor of such a system.
I'm not in favor the so-called Originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution. It sets up a self-contradictory situation in which the document itself clearly attempts to describe a democracy, but is interpreted in such a way as to over-ride democratic opinion in favor of oligarchic rule by a nine person Court and their self-interested "interpretation" of the whims of ghosts. The law should reflect the desires and understanding of the people who are currently living and can express their own opinions, not the desires of deceased men whose hypothetical opinion on present situations can only be guessed at. The Founders were not unanimous in their opinions nor inflexible in changing them; using fanciful portrayals of what their sepulchres demand as the foundation of law is inherently doomed to inconsistency.