I decided to become a Constitutional Scholar. Having examined the Second Amendment, I make the following observations based of Justice Scalia's admonition that only the word is important. You cannot try to guess what the writer was thinking based on other individual writings, such as the Federalist Papers, because the exact constitutional writing was approved by all signers, after much debate.
Conclusion: The amendment is about establishing a militia and not militias. It clearly states the singular case. The Revolutionary War was clearly won by the militia (Minutemen) and our country could not have afforded a standing army, like the British or French. We have abided by the amendment by establishing the National Guard.
The second part of the amendment, about the right to bear arms not being infringed, is of course a necessity for a militia. The arms referred to obviously must include scattergun, flintlock or musket, sword, and bayonet. It would not include nukes, surface-to-air and air to surface missiles, flame throwers, bazookas, gatling guns and others . Consequently the amendment is quite limited. There is no reference to hunting or individual protection.
Have no fear. I will not accept an appointment to the Supreme Court.