Because you asked, even though it's now way off-topic for this thread (and I will not respond further):
Because the text of 2A does not indicate that the right is contingent upon participation in a militia (and indeed 10 USC 246[1] legally defines the US militia as all able-bodied male citizens of ages 17 to 44 inclusive, as well as all female citizens who are members of the National Guard, even if it did), as 2A actually specifies RKBA as a right of the people (not "people of the militia", just "people").
Heh, and where was this interpretation when the Black Panthers were arming themselves in California? Even the NRA supported gun control back then.
> In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s.
From 1930s to 2008 it was read differently. The words also don't say the mentally ill with violent uncontrollable ideations can't have them, but we constitutionally allow the disallowing of that presumably both out of common sense and because forcing allowing that has nothing to do with a well regulated militia.
Because the text of 2A does not indicate that the right is contingent upon participation in a militia (and indeed 10 USC 246[1] legally defines the US militia as all able-bodied male citizens of ages 17 to 44 inclusive, as well as all female citizens who are members of the National Guard, even if it did), as 2A actually specifies RKBA as a right of the people (not "people of the militia", just "people").
[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246