Last Post: 3:07:09am, 02/19/2018
Actually the Supreme Court holds that the Second Amendment guarantees an inspanidual right to own firearms based on very rudimentary rules of interpretation, including grammatical and historical analyses of the text and background at the time of its addition. Even most prominent left wing legal academics agree. So the inspanidual right does not require membership in any kind of "militia."
The open issue is the extent of constitutionally permissible regulation of that right. For example, you can't own a missile launcher. Similarly, the federal and state government generally cannot impose an outright ban on the private possession and ownership of basic hanguns and rifles unless some other condition has been satisfied (e.g., it is permissible to prohibit convicted felons from owning firearms because they sacrificed that constitutional right due to criminal activity).
The law on permissible regulations continues to evolve, especially recently. And that's why it's so pointless for the vast majority of people to argue about the meaning and purpose of and the cases interpreting the Second Amendment. Most don't understand and certainly most don't have something like a law degree or backgound in constitutional and case law analysis that remotely approaches the type of knowledge necessary to start an informed discussion.