“So, a ‘well-regulated’ militia was one that could operate efficiently in the absence of direct control by government.”
“Could.” But that does not mean they either always or never operated efficiently in the absence of direct control by government. I believe the Colonial Governors called out the militia on occasion. The US Constitution allows for calling out the militia. State Constitutions allow for calling out the militia.
All of which is fine with me. Of course when one talks about what an organization 'could' be or 'should' be it is not guarantee that in fact it functions that way. It just means it has the potential to do that. And it does not conflict with my understanding of the 'militia' as described in the Second Amendment and other documents to recognize that there are multiple ways in which the militia "could" be called out. It's analogous to ringing the fire bell in a volunteer fire department. The governor can ring the bell, but so can others - including private citizens if they see a fire.
By law, the National Guard is the organized militia . . .
I'd be curious which law you are citing because I'm not aware of any that actually use that phrase, though it's not particularly relevant. An "organized" militia is not the same as a "well-regulated" militia where "regulated" has the meaning in use at the time the 2nd Amendment was approved.
I don’t believe there is a well-regulated militia in the US, at least I haven’t heard of one.
Quite possibly true, on two grounds. First (which is actually your second point), we might not have heard of it. Certainly the powers that be would not admit such a thing exists. But more than that, we may not recognize it if we saw it. I remember during some of the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict, citizens armed with their own weapons were defending their businesses. That was done efficiently and effectively . . . until the National Guard showed up. The National Guard (as ordered) just watched the rioters loot and burn. So, which was 'well-regulated' in the original meaning of that term?
If a mob of looters started down my street, I can assure you that my wife and I would smoothly and efficiently defend our property, using weapons which we own and with which we are skilled. My neighbors (most of them, anyway) would also. Thank God we've never been called on to do that.
I'd be curious which law you are citing… http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim
(I don't know why that's not coming up as a live link. I didn't do anything different.)
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. (Emphasis added.)
An "organized" militia is not the same as a "well-regulated" militia where "regulated" has the meaning in use at the time the 2nd Amendment was approved.
You previously wrote "Well-regulated" meant "smoothly and efficiently operating.". Perhaps I’m giving them to much of the benefit of the doubt, but I thought that applied to the National Guard.