From a previous post in this thread by Bob Schwarer:
"Well regulated" had nothing to do with being under someone's control. It had to do with the person being proficient in what he was doing. I can send you a copy of the manual of arms of the time showing what a "well regulated" soldier or militiaman was expected to do.
From a previous post in this thread by yours truly:
Smitty's first post and Bob Schwarer's last post conform to the principle I've heard that the "well regulated milita" potentially consists of every citizen. Although the National Guard is sometimes called the Militia, it is not the same thing. It is instead essentially an auxiliary branch of the U.S. Army. The citizen milita mentioned in the 2nd amendment is not a regular, organized, ongoing body--it is everyday folks equipped to fight tyranny if and when necessary. Note that the amendment does not say that one must be an official member of the militia in order to claim the right to bear arms, it merely mentions that a free state needs the capability to have one--in other words, the citizens must be capable of effectively resisting an oppressive government.

Many seem to think that the "well regulated militia" phrase restricts the second amendment's rights to certain organized groups. That is simply not what it says. If the constitution's writers had wanted to have such limits, they were more than capable of making that clear and unambiguous. While it's unfortunate that the definition of the phrase "well regulated", in this context, has become archaic, the language is plain enough in not requiring official membership in any organization in order to avail oneself of the stated right.