The basic problem is that the militia is NOT intended as a state-by-state entity, and definitely not as a state/government balancing force. Where do I get this? Easy – constitutional text. Two major parts of the text are relevant.

First, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15-16:

[The Congress shall have Power...]

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

First, notice that Congress is explicitly granted not only the power to ‘govern’ the Militia, but also to ‘discipline’ them, organize them, and call them forth to ‘execute the Laws of the Union’ and – a key phrase – to ‘suppress Insurrections.’

I think it’s facially implausible to argue that the militias are intended, at least from a Constitutional perspective, to be a bulwark against the federal government. Indeed, it seems more accurate to say that the Constitutional structure purposefully co-opts governance of the state militias, and unifies them under the aegis of the federal government.

Which leads, of course, to the Commander-in-Chief Clause:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”

Now, the obvious hedge here is that he’s only the Commander in Chief of the Militia when they’re called into ‘actual Service’. But that hedge doesn’t work, because Congress can explicitly order them into service whenever it wants, and moreover, one of the prime granted times where it unambiguously may do so is to suppress insurrection. The only thing the States constitutionally are present for is the ‘appointment of Officers’, and the authority to train under Congress’s rules (which I’m not sure I see the particular point of.) [By the by, the former is an oddity which I think I've never seen discussed, and I'm curious about, come to think of it.]

Which is to come about and say that the constitutional analysis of even the rebellion situation makes clear that the dissenters were right; and, moreover, that the clever attempts to use the militia right to imply an individual right are wrong, at least insofar as the claimed purpose is an anti-federal bulwark…

Or, D.C. would have been allowed to have its gun laws and political realities would prevent a national ban, since many Democrats (including Kerry, who showed off his gun when running for president) do not want one. This comes off a tad hyperbolic therefore.

The 2nd does not “grant’ the RKBA but only offers it explicit enumeration and additional protection — the Right to Keep and to Carry arms would still exist.

Trying to remove it would be to remove an essential (it even says so in the 2nd) element of a free state, one like free speech or freedom of religion without any of which the Constitution would be null and void, the nation would dissolve — likely into regional blocks of new countries.

BTW, the odious lie that Sharon Angle somehow advocated for “2nd Amendment remedies” is ignorant to repeat — she was actually WARNING that some people might do this, not suggesting but hoping to avoid it. She is not a particularly artful speaker but misquoting her to help Harry Reaid win the election is now past.

In fact, it’s the same response I had myself when I saw the Westboro Baptist Church’s reaction to the Tucson travesty. Repeal the First Amendment!! If these psychos can unashamedly cheer the death of a 9-year-old innocent girl as a message from their so-called god, then something is clearly wrong in this world. WBC and Loughner are both irretrievably damaged and despicable scum. But luckily they are a very small minority who abuse the rights that we hold so dearly.

These rights make the US what it is. Changing these sacred rights in response to tragedies only weakens the fabric of our country. The first and second amendments provide a true counter balance to tyranny and guarantee all of the other rights we’ve secured as a people.

In considering the reactions of Paul Helmke, Carolyn McCarthy, Frank Lautenberg, Elie Mystal and other kooks to this whole situation, I have honestly for the first time understood the true meaning behind one of Benjamin Franklin’s most famous quotes. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

It has been quoted a lot over the years, especially in response to the PATRIOT act. However, having someone check my library card or read my email just didn’t make it click. Perhaps it’s because I just don’t care that much. But maybe it is because the abstract “privacy” rights do not come close to the same point as someone arguing the repeal of an actual enumerated constitutional right to keep and bear tangible objects that enable us to defend our way of life.

It wouldn’t be fun for anyone involved. As we learned in Iraq, it is hard to fight that kind of insurgency, it is worse when you can’t tell the insurgents from your high school buddies and family, etc.

Air power would be useless, as would tanks and other heavy firepower unless you don’t mind carpet bombing city neighborhoods.

There’s more nuance, though, as you thoroughly point out, and the part I thought was most interesting was the notion that the imagined repeal action “could trigger the very scenario” that made people want to protect the armament of state militias.