"The 2A seems to be pretty clear in that it was written so that the inactive militia, a group that is the body of the citizenry with certain such constraints as Congress sees fit to impose (such as age),"
I disagree with that, I see nothing in the wording of the Constitution or the BOR that states that Congress can place constraints on what a militia is. I think that the Founding Fathers would agree with me. Case in point:
"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." -- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution [1787]
"No free men shall be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
The people, free men, etc. does not tell me that they would allow Congress to impose any restrictions on who the right applies to.
I have post before that there is no laws stating that you can not yell "fire" in a crowded theater and that you are able to without being charged with anything.
What's to argue with? The word "militia" means "the body of the people capable of bearing arms". The RTKABA is an individual right and the militia clause of the 2A is simply a clause used to justify that individual right. But there are no absolute rights. Your right to life is forfeited upon conviction of murdering another human being after due process has been done.
But the wording leaves us with some information and that information is that the people wanted the citizenry to be armed with the same arms as an active Army. I really don't see how anybody can argue that point with a straight face.
And for you MAC, it's fine to say that the 2A guarantees a RTKABA but you have to expound a bit. Is the RTKABA only indicated for squirrel hunting?
Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):
The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia ..."
That doesn't place contraints on what a militia is? It gives Congress the power to define a militia, which is exactly what Congress did when they wrote the Militia Act of 1792.
You "see nothing" indeed. Like that means something.
Actually there is.
Article I, Sec 8: "The Congress shall have Power...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
It would seem that if they have the power to organize, arm and discipline the Militia, they have the power to define what it is.