“I think the distinction between “organized” and “unorganized” was legislated after the Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified, perhaps long after.” And so on for the rest of your post.
Doesn’t matter for the thread at hand, or at least most of it. “Organized” militia and “unorganized” militia exist in reality and this is recognized in law.
George Mason spoke: “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” (George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788)
If the militia consists of the “whole people”, certainly some of them are unorganized.
Organized militia kind of fell apart in many States sometime prior to the civil war. People were still part of the militia, but they were unorganized.
I don't disagree.
My main point was that the National Guard, if their officers are not appointed by their respective states, cannot constitute the Militia.
Anti-gunners in the past have successfully characterized any "organized militia" as being a group which wishes to overthrow the government, even if the mission was simply to be prepared to overthrow a tyrannical government which is what the Second Amendment supports.
Characterizing the National Guard as an organized militia justifies outlawing any other militia activity, at least in the minds of some.