My question to you in return is, "Why doesn't the second amendment simply say: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'?" I mean, that's your interpretation of it, right?
Take what you want, discard the rest. I'm sure the Founding Fathers didn't mean to put in that militia/free-state stuff anyways -- they were just giving an example of why it was so important. Even though they didn't provide examples for the other amendments. Uh huh.
"Are you aware of what is referred to as the "standard model" of the Second Amendment? Outside the Ninth Circuit it is becoming quite the fashion."
The 9th Circuit is aware of the "standard model" (aka "traditional individual rights model):
"There are three principal schools of thought that form the basis for the debate. The first, which we will refer to as the "traditional individual rights" model, holds that the Second Amendment guarantees to individual private citizens a fundamental right to possess and use firearms for any purpose at all, subject only to limited government regulation. This view, urged by the NRA and other firearms enthusiasts, as well as by a prolific cadre of fervent supporters in the legal academy, had never been adopted by any court until the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 227 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 153 L. Ed. 2d 184, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002)."
"The second view, a variant of the first, we will refer to as the "limited individual rights" model. Under that view, individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service."
"The third, a wholly contrary view, commonly called the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like."
"Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates. After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second Amendment.
-- Silveira v Lockyer
I already answered this question for you on another thread.
In the Gitlow case, which "incorporated" the First Amendment, the court incorrectly applied "Congress shall make no law", by finding that it was allowable for a state to outlaw speech which might incite people to overthrow the government.
Without the militia clause, the Supreme Court could make the same assertion; that our Founders never intended to allow people to have arms which might enable them to overthrow the government. But that, in fact, is exactly what our Founders intended. It was exactly what was needed on April 18, 1775 and it is equally necessary today.
US vs Miller only questioned the suitability of a particular weapon. It did not require that Miller be a member of a state militia or any militia. If that had been required, the Supreme Court could have reversed due to lack of standing. They did not.
One might reasonably ask, did the National Firearms Act of 1934 require that state militias pay a tax on short-barreled shotguns? It certainly required Miller, who was not a militia member, to pay a tax. The remand from the Supreme Court only referred to the issue of the suitability of the weapon.
It would have seemed absolutely ridiculous for Miller to have the charges once again dismissed for lack of evidence that a short-barreled shotgun was NOT suitable, only to have the Supreme Court remand once again with instructions to have the prosecution prove that Miller was not a member of a militia.
By the same logic, why doesn't the Declaration of Independence simply say "We establish this Constitution for the United States of America"?