I've Been Accused of being Liberal. Okay I'm laying my cards on the table

Historically speaking, it gets real dicey. The historical precedent of this part of the constituion raises the question of which is superior, a state militia, or national army?

In 1786/1794, state militias rebelled against national goverment policy. In the latter they were put down by a nationl army.

Section two of the Constitution gives the president power, or commanding power of a national army, which is never mentioned in the Constituton--state militias are legitimate "when called into national service"--which is ultimately dicey, since the legislature is the official body of gov't which declares war.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say here Reb. I was just pointing out that the language of the Constitution itself doesn't say anything about the militias being used to resist the government. While it happened as you have stated (one of those times was pre-Constitution), that still doesn't mean that "militia" when used in the Second Amendment referred to an armed insurrection against the government as suggested by Wombat.