Yes, we heard your silly interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that nobody in the Supreme Court agrees with.  We can't find any historical documents, neither in the ratification debates, nor the Federalist Papers, nor anything that would even remotely support your particular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  "Well regulated" does not mean what you think it means in the context of the United States Constitution.  The word "regulation" means something different today than it did back then before there was a massive permanent bureaucratic state.  Hell, the word "militia" doesn't even mean the same thing.  That just meant basically anyone who could be conscripted to fight a war or fight the Indians or capture runaway slaves.  

They were not the National Guard by any stretch of the imagination.  The 2nd Amendment was SPECIFICALLY designed as a check against a standing army.  The perceived threat was that the national army would be used to tyrannize the people.