What's so hard to understand about "well-regulated militia?"

The intention was that if everyone had a gun then the state would have the entire population available for its defensive in case of a foreign invasion. It is likely that well regulated militia infers a similar type of right enjoyed in Canada to bear arms. In Canada anyone can have a gun as freely as one might have a driver’s licence. There are rules in place that prevent some from having guns and other rules that take alway the privilege of gun ownership for those who abuse it. Doesn’t that seem more reasonable and the likely intent of the framers of the constitution of the United States?