I disagree with this interpretation. A "Well-Regulated Militia" consisted of basically all the people capable of bearing arms. This Militia was not only a check on government tyranny, an oppressive army being one aspect of such tyranny, but also reduced dramatically the necessity of supporting such an army.
The little noticed Third Amendment prohibits the government from forcing citizens to house soldiers during peace time. Such soldiers were sometimes a necessity but always a concern. Reducing the need to maintain such an army was one goal of the Second Amendment.
The relatively recent militarization of police departments is a fearful development and would have been addressed by our Founders if any such police force had existed at the time of the Revolution.
Consider: "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." From Federalist 29 link
Consider that the Government the colonists overthrew was a system of Military Governorships which used the Army as police.
Controlling a standing Army, actually even whether to have a standing, professional (Federal) army, was discussed in The Federalist Papers, and the conclusion was that the State Militias (each an army under the command of the Governor), and then the People, in their entirety, would be sufficient to counter a professional army by sheer force of numbers, even without martial training, should that professional army seek power. Therein lies the security of a free state: dealing with outside threats by the Navy, the standing (federal army, and such State Militias as might be called forth to deal with the threat, while on the other hand, the People retain, by virtue of sheer numbers and arms, the ability to halt any usurpations by Federal or State forces, should that occur.
I do not make that interpretation capriciously.
With the option of having a Federal Army, the Third Amendment was included to further protect the rights and property of the people.
Keep in mind that until the Bill of Rights was added in, the Constitution would not have been ratified.
(Note that now, simply by declaring an "emergency" those rights are gone via the NDAA, and the government has claimed the power to seize anything we own.)