It doesn't. The second amendment says, "a well regulated Militia".
A well regulated Militia was one that was organized, trained, disciplined, armed and accoutered with officers appointed by the state. What else can that be but a state Militia?
"You are aware that private militias were common at the time, right."
Be that as it may, their right to keep and bear arms would not have been protected by the second amenmdment.
Nonsense! The Amendment specifically and explicitly forbids the govm't from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They are the same people mentioned in the other 10 Amendments. It does not forbid the govm't from infringing upon any state militia, or the Amendment would have explitly covered State miltias and excluded any mention of the people's right. THat's very clear in their writings regarding the matter.
Noah Webster:
""Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
The kingdom's of Europe didn't consist of states. Webster considered the right to keep and bear arms, the people's right.
Parick Henry:
""Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
The people's right, not any state's right.
Trench Coxe:
"... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. "
...and on, and on... The people's right!
So you are postulating that the state can do what private individuals cannot do?
Like free America from the British and establish the United States of America?
How, then, would the Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause of Article 1, Section 8 have had any meaning, if the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms (not FIREarms, but ARMS, mind you) wasn't protected against federal government encroachment? Such Letters were, in fact, issued by the Congress in the War of 1812, and many privately armed (with multiple cannon) ships took part in helping the US Navy win the war on the seas against Britain.
Seems to me that Letters of Marque and Reprisal mean nothing if someone can't go out and buy a fully-armed warship. Of course, most of us couldn't do it even if the Feds wouldn't try to stop us, due to lack of money. But why couldn't Bill Gates or Warren Buffett purchase and outfit their own carrier task forces, if they so desired? Why couldn't they or other individuals purchase smaller boats (say a cigarette boat armed with a quad-.50 or a 20mm minigun) for the same purpose? It seems to me that there is no legal reason whatsoever - just fear, fear that the common man won't tolerate being pushed around by the powers-that-be.
“A well regulated Militia was one that was organized, trained, disciplined, armed and accoutered with officers appointed by the state.” - RP
Not so fast - Private militias, without “State” appointments of officers are equally valid.
You are inventing a state requirement where there is none.
Please back your extraordinary claim that all valid militias had state appointed officers, or withdraw it.