The question on the table is "What did the Founders think?" I pretented cited, historical evidence of the context of the clause which make clear what the Founders thought. We're arguing about it because you do not find that evidence compelling, and I'm attempting to tease out where you've gotten your facts about this intent. I'll have to dig up the SCOTUS case for the DC handgun ban being overturned (2007?) to see why Roberts believed in an individual right, or believed that it was to be found in the Founder's intent. You appear to be basing yours on our 2015 grammar rules, which doesn't quite cut it if we're going all way back to 1787. Also, keep it mind it was manifestly clear for years before it was challenged in court :)
For example:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/daniel-zimmerman/se...
It depends on whether the question on the table is, "What did the founders think?" or "Should what the founders thought carry any weight?" The intent is obviously salient to the first question, not necessarily to the second.
> It's clear that the writers intended the clause to be read in the context of militas.
No, it is manifestly unclear. That is the only reason we're arguing about it, because it's unclear.