Show me some writings from the time using 'regulate' the way you define it. Otherwise, I'll stick to my interpretation. Also note that the originalist, textualist, whatever-ist jurists on the Court repeatedly insist on looking to the plain meaning of words in both the constitution and statutes in their opinions. Scalia even went so far as to say that the drafters' intent was not dispositive in interpreting the constitution; what was important was the understanding of its plain language by a citizen of the time. Well-drilled doesn't meet that criteria for 'regulate,' from any definition I can find (other than partisan writings, of course), instead it seems a more modern attempt to justify no regulation of firearms. I don't pretend that I'll convince you otherwise, but I'm certainly open to reading anything contemporaneous to the drafting of the constitution that proves your point.

Here's what I linked below:

early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule, straight piece of wood," from PIE root *reg- "move in a straight line," with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line," thus "to lead, rule." Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s.