To which I retort with Hamilton in 29:

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense.

...

But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable...



Lots more in that one. He sees the argument about defending against a large federal army, but he also is speaking of regulation/training. Again, it's not a mob with pitchforks and muskets. It's a disciplined militia, similar to today's national guard. Which the feds can call-up as needed, and they have done so numerous times.

The 2A, despite Scalia's "jiggery-pokery", is talking about an organized, disciplined militia (answerable primarily to the State, not the Federal).

But, again, we've gone over this before. The Constitution was written with an economy of words. So each word means something. The first 13 words of the 2A mean something, and I think Hamilton pretty much elaborates it in 29.