If children -- or anyone else -- has their individual RKBA protected, it would be by their state constitution, not the second amendment.
You're thinking the second amendment protects everyone and everything -- National Guard, unorganized militia, kindergartners, little old ladies, national defense, home defense, personal defense, handguns, machine guns, nuclear weapons, on and on and on.
Well, no wonder you sound ridiculous. Anyone would. You're trying to solve the Grand Unification Theory using formulas from calculus and geometry.
There is no Grand Unification. There is the second amendment and there are state constitutions. They protect different arms for different people for different reasons.
It says "the people", not "the militias".
You're thinking the second amendment protects everyone and everything -- National Guard, unorganized militia, kindergartners, little old ladies, national defense, home defense, personal defense, handguns, machine guns, nuclear weapons, on and on and on.
Er... that's what the Founders said too dumbass.
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." - Samuel Adams, in Phila. Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789
They protect different arms for different people for different reasons.
You say this, despite any evidence to support your idiotic theory. Sorry... you lose.
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the 'real' object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
The Right is inherent. The Second Amendment protects said Right from "infringement" from any quarter. Not as a side-effect of militia service, and not just limited to the FedGov (via Art 6 para 2), but so that militia service is at all possible should the government fail in its other duties.
You should put on a black robe and join the 9th circuit.
So you are saying that being in a militia is a requisite to the right to keep and bear arms?