2A history Lesson

I know we all support the original meaning of the Second Amendment as well as the interpretation of the interpretation of the phrase "A well-regulated militia". Still, it's nice to have scholarly support. This fellow's analysis, among others, was used in the DC v. Heller case:

http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/Journal/index.html

The money quote:

“Well regulated militia,” as used in early revolutionary period writings of George Mason prior to hostilities indicated that the militia, the armed free able-bodied males, were effective for defense - not that they were government authorized, organized, or trained. This is evident since the purpose of these self-arming, self-embodying, and self-training defensive associations, or independent companies was protection against government raised military forces. Mason and the men who organized for mutual defense began preparing to resist the King’s troops over six months prior to any hostilities and more than a year prior to the formation of Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights.

"These commentators contend instead
that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia . . . to a free state"
means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the
Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly
stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia." - U.S. Congress, 1982

Edit: Never mind, found the answer to my question.