Right now the Supremes are refusing to admit that it means anything besides having a right to have a gun in your home for self-defense. The "and bear" arms minor detail just might as well not exist.
Militias, which the bare wording of that Florida law wouldn't quite seem to outlaw (presumptively assume it was part of the general post-Reconstruction effort to keep freedmen "in their place"; with the exception of efforts to suppress dueling American gun control got it's start in that), aren't even operationally part of the 2nd Amendment except as a justification for the RKBA part, and that was basically a sop thrown at the Founders who disliked standing armies but couldn't get far with veterans like Washington pointing out the limits of militias.
I can go a lot further in this analysis if you wish, but one of the foundational principles is above, a tension between the militias (safe but less effective), "regulars" (less safe, more effective), and "select militias" (utterly dangerous and not effective except in internal oppression).
Our Founders did not like the idea of select militias at all, the phrase had connotations around the strength of e.g. Communist ... and surprise, surprise, our modern, paramilitary police are very close to that definition. With outsiders like the Federal Marshalls when they pull these sorts of stunts (see also Ruby Ridge) pretty much fitting it to a T.
The other thing to initially look at is the Constitution's provisions for militias. Outlawing them at the state level would negate the rights and duties of the Congress about them ... something in part sidestepped with the creation of the National Guard, which until Heller made the point moot our betters insisted were the militia.
