People claiming and citing the 2nd amendment stopped after "to bear arms". This is a regulation. It stipulates a "well-regulated militia" as being a part of the right to bear arms; it is the purpose for the right. If it could reasonably be expected that a person couldn't belong to a well-regulated militia (in this case, it is doubtful that a person could), then why should they be permitted to have a gun? Seems simple to me.