Don't think you know what "well regulated means".
*worlds largest facepalm*
Generally speaking if you don’t know anything about a subject and someone calls you out on it, the best recourse is to stop and go do some research rather than continuing to make your self look uneducated.
I am only going to explain this once, so listen up.
First things first lets look at the definition of the first term that you don’t understand.
The term militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/), or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service
So saying this doesn’t refer to common citizens shows a complete lack of understanding of the word.
I am going to keep this short so forgive me for not covering the larger implications of any of the subject mater.
On to the second phrase you have failed to comprehend.
I know that in your modernly versed mind you have looked at “well regulated” and what you interpreted this to mean was governmental regulation, and you perceived it this way because you did not understand what Militia means. So this was the only semi logical conclusion you could come to. But it's incorrect. The correct modern ‘translation’ of what this means is actually well trained.
Granted I can understand how it’s easy to get confused when you forget that this was written 222 years ago, and don’t have any concept of the history of that time period so I will go easy on you for that. They just don’t teach history well in US schools.
So all of that understanding of history and definitions aside there is this:
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
So not only is your misinterpretation of the Second Amendment wrong by classical standards, it’s incorrect by modern US supreme court established definition. And I could go into the Natural Rights that predate the Constitution, but I think this is enough information for one lesson.
Any further questions?