You mean like the first amendment right of "'the people' peaceably to assemble"?
"Book clubs are formed to benefit the club members, but the club members don't exist to benefit the club."
You have to register with the state Book Club if you're between 17 and 45. (C'mon, we said the Book Club was necessary to the advancement of a modern state -- is this important or isn't it?)
You said: Book clubs are formed to benefit the club members.
You also said: The Militia ... exists to serve the purposes of its members.
So my analogy is holding up.
"So, how can a non-infringable right exist to only benefit the Militia and not the individual needs of its constituent members?"
It protects an individual right when used collectively.
Does that mean that one cannot stand alone on a street corner, but it's okay only if one is with a group?
-PJ
Yes, it's holding up. ...as an example of what is deeply, profoundly wrong with your premise re:RKBA. If we had the same restrictions on books as we have on arms, as indicated by your excellent analogy, we would have already had another revolution.
Book clubs existing only to benefit members thereof, and anyone not a member and/or not acting under its arbitrary rules may be denied the right to read or own books? Insane! Preposterous! Absurd! ...and equally so the right to arms your reasoning would deny us.
Take the hint from your own analogy.
Book clubs only viably arise from the right of the people to own and read books in general.
Militias only viably arise from the right of the people to keep and bear arms in general.
Any government which infringes on either of those rights gravely harms its populace and itself.
Which is rooted in the individual right to associate or not associate. If no individuals want to peaceably assemble, the assembly cannot exist.
(C'mon, we said the Book Club was necessary to the advancement of a modern state -- is this important or isn't it?)
It is only important insofar as the needs of the constituent individuals are being served.
You said: Book clubs are formed to benefit the club members. You also said: The Militia ... exists to serve the purposes of its members.
So my analogy is holding up.
Yes. You've proved that both your Book Club analogy and your interpretation of the militia clause are equally faulty. They both fail when you attempt to say the member's rights exist to serve the organization, therefore the right is about the organization and not the members thereof.
It protects an individual right when used collectively.
It also protects an individual right when used individually, so therefore is not of sole benefit to the Militia. Or do you expect the Militia to be called out to deal with every mugging?