2nd Amendment Consideration

There's been recent evidence coming forward that communities with access to guns are safer and I personally do believe that it protects the individual right to own a gun or other weapon.

However, something about the wording of the 2nd amendment and considering our founders' warnings about "standing armies", I began to wonder if there isn't another reason for the 2nd amendment other than to overthrow corrupt government or protect ourselves from harm.

So you can follow my line of reasoning:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The amendment says that a militia is necessary to the SECURITY of a free state. This is often attributed to the Jeffersonian attitude that a totalitarian state should be overthrown, violently if need be. However, I wonder if it is also intended to be a substitute for having standing armies. What would be scarier for a country looking for conquest than a patriotic country full of well armed and trained citizens? Who needs a standing army if you hand the guns out on every corner?

Maybe a point we should be bringing up about the 2nd amendment is that it is a natural part of our nation's defense against outside powers - so that we don't have to build a huge military in order to be safe from other countries.

Thoughts? Evidence to support or refute this idea?