DC vs Heller

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about the second amendment Ive noticed with all this publicity about DC v Heller. While I am glad the supreme court struck down DC's absolutely idiotic law I don't think the second amendment means what they think it means.
When the constitution was written men were stilling dueling to defend their honer i.e. Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Certainly in this environment the idea of anyone telling you that you could not defend yourself in your own home was absurd.
I am not a historian but from my own perspective the 2nd amendment means exactly what it says. It grants states the right to raise armed militias. These were militias after the manner of the minutemen. What did the minutemen do? They kicked a repressive government out of their colonies.
I think this because at the time the idea of the constitution was hotly debated idea (see federalists v antifederalists). That is why they worked on it over two months in a room closed to the public. One of the biggest concerns was that of the central/federal governments power versus those retained by states. In order to alleviate these concerns (and get the needed 3/4ths majority of colonies to sign) the drafters of the constitution added the bill of rights. When you look at the list of the 10 amendments as a whole I think you can see the fear of another repressive government shining though.
One must also remember that the government cannot grant rights. It only has the power to restrict them. I believe that regardless of which century you live in the right to defend your family and your home by the most efficient means possible is not only a right but a duty.