Reply #76: See your favorite court case US v. Miller. [View All]

(quoting Miller)
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
(end quote)


So according to Miller, the militia comprises all able-bodied persons and ordinarily each person was to supply himself with arms.

Note that the CA statutes say the unorganized militia is all other able bodied persons not in service to the organized militia. The CA statutes categorize the militia further but otherwise is in agreement with Miller on who comprises the militia.


You said:
"Because obviously the RKBA has no relevance to an UNarmed militia". That statement reeks of the logic of Stalin.

The unorganized militia are not UNarmed, though you may wish to DISarm them. Simply because the state does not arm them, does not cause them to be UNarmed, since they can of course arm themselves as the Supreme Court has said.

You seem to want to reduce the second amendment to a statement that those people that the state choses to arm, may be armed under the second amendment.

But the second amendment is a "right of the people". It is not a "right of the state", as those words appear nowhere in the amendment.