[smoketree]

And if the state is part of a so called government tyranny does that mean that the militia is also.
The whole business of "the People" being armed independent of any government is to prevent the tyranny of the government.
Your position is baseless and foolhardy.

[Texas Federalist]

And if the state is part of a so called government tyranny does that mean that the militia is also.

Not the actual militia, which was simply the populace at large. One of the arguments in the Emerson case was based on the fact that "the Militia" as defined at the time the BOR passed, meant the entire populace. The argument equating the national guard to the militia is not a proper analogy because there was a group that performed similar functions to our current police forces, national guard or army reserve, called the "select militia". Clearly, the founders intended the "militia" in the second amendment to mean every citizen capable of carrying a weapon.