What did the Founders mean...

[jimmy the one]

51. WHO expects american militias to provide their own arms?

alea: .. I hope if that time ever comes there will be {an} American with a gun behind every blade of grass... I think that's just one part of what the Founders meant. I think they felt all Americans had a right to self defense in any crises that may arise, whether one on one, or Army vs Army, or Government vs Citizens. It may not all be encompassed in the Second Amendment, but within the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the additional Amendments

The founding fathers meant only for white males to have the right to keep & bear arms, and certainly not 'all Americans'. No slaves or women. Indeed the reason for American 'have arms' decrees included slave uprisings. The 1792 Militia Act limited this to adult white males 17-45, or less than 20% of americans. Women could not even vote. Slaves were specifically barred.
You couch your remarks by saying '..Americans had a right to self defense in any crises..', but your previous argument clearly is based upon people providing their own weapons and arms, ie a rifle behind every blade of grass. The right to self defense had existed for millennia prior to the 2nd amendment, and should not be conflated as equivalent to a right to keep & bear arms.

alea: I believe they {Fd'gFathers} wanted us to protect ourselves and the Country, with deadly force if necessary.

Right, collectively, by militia. Individuals with guns were largely worthless without organization (Justice Jos Story, circa 1825).

alea: .. if a time comes where militias are needed, it is expected that the people provide their own weapons

Expected by whom? the govt? gunowners? I'd agree if you mean rightwing fanatics, wayne lapierre-head would chant this the loudest. But the 1792 Militia Act is defunct, there's no requirement for militias to provide their own arms, that I know of. The govt arms most all of the national & state guards.
When would massed citizen militias ever plausibly be 'needed'? under what conditions could state governors or the president call up the unorganized militias to overcome tyranny within or without, thinking rough cut militias with small arms could handle a situation better than the armed forces? if it were friendly armed forces itself as tyrannical, unorganized militias would simply be cannon fodder, and people would avoid 'joining' any resistance out of pragmatism, realization that it would be ultimately futile.

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” – Yamamoto
Verdict: Fake
Another phantom Yamamoto quote, also with no source or corroboration to back it up, and generally regarded to be made up. While the quote has become popular on the internet and with gun-rights advocates, it doesn’t have any relevance to Japan’s situation in the war. Japan never intended any kind of landing in the mainland US, waging war instead to build up her economy, create defensive rings around the Home Islands and to safeguard her natural resources. Even if Japan had wished to eventually conquer the world she had nowhere near the resources necessary to carry out such a dramatic offensive. Even performing the needed reconnaissance for a landing on the West Coast was far beyond Japan’s means, much less transporting the millions of men and thousands of tons of equipment that would be needed.
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/01/14/historical-misquotes-war/

Japan did not even invade Hawaii, no serious plans, which had a much shorter oil supply route. Furthermore, it's hyperbole, and americans in 1940 had largely revolvers & bolt action rifles & carbines, a far cry from modern sophisticated firearms.