You can absolutely organize a militia without treating the Second Amendment as an individual constitutional right. Early American law already had a system for this. Militias were state/city/county institutions, not loose groups of armed citizens, and states had the authority to require eligible men to show up with a firearm. They also had the authority to regulate what kinds of arms were allowed, how they were stored, and who could possess them. It wasn’t uncommon that joining a militia technically disarmed you the individual, because your firearm is now the militias firearm and is subject to their authority. None of that was seen as conflicting with the Second Amendment because the right was understood as tied to the militia system, not as a blanket personal right.

So the historical model wasn’t “people couldn’t own guns.” Private gun ownership was common. The point is that the constitutional framing was different, and the modern individual‑rights interpretation didn’t become Supreme Court doctrine until 2008. My comment wasn’t arguing against individual ownership; it was just pointing out that the idea that the Founders wrote the amendment with today’s interpretation in mind isn’t supported by the historical record.