Their state can provide that protection, even without a well regulated militia.
"I may be called up as part of the militia."
Under your scenario, you said the state didn't have a militia. So you mean you may be drafted by the federal government to fight a foreign enemy. Fine. You'll be provided arms by the federal government, just like they did with the draftees during the Viet Nam war. Plenty of guns to go around. Plenty of ammunition.
"amounts to national suicide by codified willful ineptitude."
No. Even with constitutional protections at all levels, there's nothing that says people must be armed. What if the people choose not to? Same result.
"You would have us as a populace disarmed by leaders who hold their "subjects" in contempt."
Not I. If the citizens of a state wish to protect their individual RKBA, they are certainly free to do so. They may protect any arms they wish, and may protect the right of their citizens to retain their arms at home. It's totally up to the state.
Furthermore, if the state wishes to then form an organized, well regulated militia with officers appointed by the state, the federal government may not stop them from doing so or interfere with their efforts in any way.
This is the current system. My turn to ask a question: What's your problem with it?
I've explained it repeatedly: the various levels of gov't have neglected the militia into oblivion - yet members thereof may still be called up on short notice with little equipment to give them and little time to train them. The Founding Fathers, recognizing the need for a "well-regulated militia" and it being "necessary to the security of a free state", recognized that the best way to achieve that was for "the people" to "keep and bear arms" without "infringement" - so that when called up, they could do so already armed and familiar therewith; this principle was promptly codified in the Militia Act of 1792, where everyone was told what they were expected to show up with (at their own cost), and after equipping themselves were to inform the state they were so armed. The axiom is that arming comes first, THEN organization.
A moment ago I was notified that I can pick up my M4LE - the closest thing to an army grunt's select-fire M4 I can legally get. It took nearly a year to obtain for two reasons:
1. There weren't enough. Colt et al are feverishly manufacturing M16 variants, barely able to keep up with demand - thanks to the relatively small situation in Iraq. Colt had little time to produce the small run of M4LEs I could dip into. Should there be a national security crisis big enough to warrant calling _me_ up, I have little faith that good equipment would be provided - and of course there would be little time to train, especially relative to self-training I can do myself before then.
2. Paperwork. It took about a month just to get permission to receive this thing ... unlike what the Founding Fathers enacted in the Militia Act, where registration came after equipping.
My problem with your view is that it is naieve: should the militia be called up - and I mean the whole thereof, not just the NG cream-of-the-crop - it will be sudden, frought with inadequate equipment & training. I'm not talking Vietnam, a medium-sized political operation on the other side of the planet. I'm talking scenarios like the declaration of independence of Azltan (those patriots living there wake up to find active revolutionaries taking whole states), or LA Riots writ large (police pulled out and NG waited days to go in), or Hurricane Andrew or Katrina type disasters (total destruction of gov't protection, order & defense up to locals), etc. - events where a disarmed and incompetent populace would crumble, where "the people" ARE "the militia", and security can only be provided by an already-armed already-trained (i.e.: "well-regulated" in circa 1800 parlence) populace; if the gov't neglects its power to "well-regulate" the militia, then it's up to "the people" to do so - exactly as the Founding Fathers intended in the 2nd Amendment.
My problem with your view is the axiomatic presumption that there will be quality equipment to hand out, and time to train well, and that the gov't will be appropriately inclined to provide both in a timely manner. Reality check: National Guard aside - which really is the standing army - the gov't has, at federal and state levels, actively & wilfully neglected its power to prepare the militia; the 2nd Amendment plainly protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, being necessary to the security of a free state, without infringement - despite gov't desire to render them impotent.
Upshot:
You trust the gov't to adequately prep the militia.
I don't; neither did the Founding Fathers.