I was worried that using the word "regulated" would clash with the term "well-regulated", as I am aware of the interpretation you mention, but I still wanted to

I was worried that using the word "regulated" would clash with the term "well-regulated", as I am aware of the interpretation you mention, but I still wanted to bring the second amendment to mind. My point was that the Constitution might (or maybe just should) allow individual states to apply their own regulations to the militia within their jurisdiction, beyond the minimal Constitutional requirement/justification that the militia be readily functional.