Thanks, I've never come across your hypothesis concerning the role of militias but I am only an amateur (very)scholar when it comes to the constitution and more specifically the 2nd amendment.
If what you say is correct about militias, then the general populace would be dependent upon their respective state governments to “do the right thing” and call out their respective state militias to take action against the U.S. military. In my opinion, it is very improbable that would ever happen as there is a very strong relationship between the NG units and the US military. So, it seems to me that responsibility for taking action would still fall upon individual citizens banding together.
Btw, what does RKBA stand for? Just curious.
Or to surpress local insurrections. Or to repel invasions. This select group had the training and discipline to do this effectively.
"In my opinion, it is very improbable that would ever happen as there is a very strong relationship between the NG units and the US military"
Today? Sure.
But back when the second amendment was written, we had no standing army or "National Guard". The Founders were afraid of federal standing armies, and believed a state Militia was the better way.
"Btw, what does RKBA stand for?"
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Very telling, no? Some people's idea of the Militia is that it is a state function. Look how well the state functioned during Katrina. The local police were vacationing in another state or looting the stores while the National Guard was busy disarming the people in their own homes who weren't looting anything.
Evidently the National Guard was enforcing the principle that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be fully infringed during and after hurricanes". They didn't even bother to keep records so that people could recover their personal property.