You undoubtedly mean "unorganized", not "unarmed".
A better example of the use of the unarmed militia, simply because it was used in the manner envisioned by the Founding Fathers, is the Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946. The Battle of Athens may be hit more firmly on what the Founding Fathers had in mind, but I think the L.A. riots are a politically better example for a few reasons:
- It happened within the lifetime of any (human) voter.
- It involved ordinary people, not soldiers (even soldiers returning from duty overseas).
- It did not put the people against the government.
While the Founding Fathers were well aware of the possible need for the citizenry to take up arms against the government, many today are not yet ready for such arguments. Even if it's pointed out that governments might just hypothetically become corrupt, the possibility of local corruption would be used to justify increased federal power, while the possibility of federal corruption would be dismissed with the suggestion of creating another useless watchdog group.
IMHO, the best analogy to describe the well-regulated militia would be to liken private ownership of firearms to that of first-aid kits and fire extinguishers:
- Private ownership of first-aid kits doesn't eliminate the need for doctors. A layperson with a first-aid kit probably won't be able to provide as good care as a doctor, but an immediate lay response to a severe injury is more useful than a professional response that comes 15 minutes later.
- Fire extinguishers don't eliminate the need for fire departments. Having an untrained person at the scene of a small fire immediately with a fire extinguisher, however, is often better than having a fire brigade show up at the scene 15 minutes later.
- Private firearms don't eliminate the need for police. A crook who is chased off by an armed target still needs to be caught. On the other hand, for the intended victim having a gun immediately to chase off the attacker is better than having to wait for the police to fill out the report on the unprevented crime.
You and I are, I think, both in agreement that there is corruption in this government and that without private firearm ownership the government would become even more corrupt. For those who are reluctant to acknowledge government corruption, though, I think it more effective to argue firearms' effectiveness in defending against mobs and crooks. Even those who fully trust the government would have to acknowledge that there's no way the police can manage a sub-three-minute response time, and that three minutes can be a really long time when one is being attacked by a criminal.