Here's the reasoning @skeeter : The people are armed as part of a well-regulated militia for the purpose of defending the state (think National Guard).
@Right_in_Virginia Right, but oh so wrong.'National Guard', at the time, was a true citizen militia. 'Regulated' at the time meant 'well ordered' - IOW Well equipped. Since the militia obtained it's equipment from the citizens themselves - to include small arms, long arms, and cannons - The right to self defense is naturally inherent, because the arms reside with the citizens themselves.
In fact, while the history of the National Guard resides in the citizen militia, The National Guard itself is not a citizen militia anymore, but rather, a federalized state army - An army against the spirit and intention of the BOR and the 2nd Amendment, which being written to offset the formation of a federalized army - The BOR was written to assure the citizen militia - That is, the citizen himself - would not be displaced, subsumed, or overpowered by the newly created standing army... written specifically in fear of same.
So it is absolutely absurd to imagine the National Guard as the heir apparent of the 2nd Amendment. It resides completely and only in the inherent and natural right of every man himself, as granted by God.
Heller was won by a one vote majority. Heller could be overturned by the same margin. If Heller is overturned, in this current environment, all gun bets are off. 
All gun bets are off the minute there is universal registration, as hawked by your far left leaning president, at which point the threat you imply is made moot.
