Robin2:
IMHO you are interpreting too narrowly the word "militia" as used in the Constitution. I think it was intended to mean what we nowadays call "the armed forces"....
Well we disagree 
Assuming this is accurate;
"Ultimately, Hamilton argues, the militia will be used to defend a "neighboring State" from a "common enemy" or to "guard the republic against the violence of faction and sedition". By its nature, the militia will not be easy for the federal government to abuse, and will instead act as a check on tyranny".
"The kind of involvement the federal government would have over the militias would be to call them for aid in the case that the standing military showed to be a threat to the civil liberties of the people".
"Hamilton concludes that the militia, as it is constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called into use by other states to do things such as quell insurrections".
So back in 1788 I think they had a clear view that there should be a relatively small standing army or "armed forces", hopefully under the control of the Federal Governement, but quite distinct militias under control of the states who were the backstop against tyrany. Of course saying in 1700s that somebody has the inalienable right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia is very different from saying every man and his dog has an individual right to the modern firepower now available.