+268 (second amendment interpretation 202: How "well regulated" Tops Things Off - 2 )

Had the amendment referred to a "well regulated militia" instead, "well regulated" would have been applicable on the militia internally. This can lead to having the application of "well regulated" dissolved in the group part and changing from a status, if  we had it as a status to begin with, to a description only. But with the capitalization we have for the word "militia", "well regulated" will not be applicable on the inside parts and therefore remains not just a description but also a status. Being a status implies that the external environment outside requires the militia to be well regulated.   
There could be an objection here on the use of the word "status" arguing that it does not fit because being well regulated would persist even when the environment does not require that. The answer here is that that objection itself is the result of the dissolving action described above. Otherwise, when "well regulated" apply to the whole only and can not reach the internal parts as individual existences, we may have the thing with the statuses of being  well regulated or not well regulated, if the external environment of the thing requires it to be well regulated,  or, we would have the question about that status inapplicable, if the external environment of the thing does not require being well regulated to begin with.