Robin2:
IMHO you are interpreting too narrowly the word "militia" as used in the Constitution. I think it was intended to mean what we nowadays call "the armed forces".And (referring to Reply #44) it is certainly arguable that the Constitution means "militias that would unify in times of national threat rather than a large standing army". Indeed I think that is the only alternative logical interpretation.
But the references in Reply #5 suggest to me that the intention was to be able to oppose a militia under the control of a rogue President (I'm assuming they had already decided that the President would be commander-in-chief).
...R
The Army is owned by the government, the citizen's militia is not as the threat may be government usurpation.
The country did not keep or seek to keep a large standing Army.
The Army chain of command leads to the President, the citizen's militia does not. Refer to the 2nd Amendment as to why.
The National Guard is also not the citizen's militia.
The amendment was made in the days when a citizen's militia could stand and fight contemporary military units with almost equal weapons. Now it might as well be spears vs tanks but as an excuse to gun-up it's got plenty of retard-appeal.