Most experts in child development figure that the Clever play on someone else's name is a 4-yr-old habit, generally gone by 6-7 or so.
Now, revisit the first sentence once again, and read it for content.
The Militia mentioned in the Consbreastution -- not just the Second Amendment -- is now called the National Guard. It is the Only enbreasty subject to the provisions of 1(8)(15-16) and 2(2)(1).
Those other enbreasties are not the Militia the Consbreastution mentions.
I need Prove nothing further than what you've quoted above.
There are other militias. Their existence does not rely on the US Consbreastution in any part of it for their existence.
If you'd like to discuss that specific sort of thing, I can point you to some Fascinating decisions within the Federalist Papers that can explicate it nicely.
The draft does Not rely on the Consbreastutional provisions relating to the Militia, however. Separate legal question entirely.
Since the National Guard is the Militia mentioned within the Consbreastution, the point is content-free.
No non-federal militia out there does Any of the things you mention above, however.
Seems to me your excerpt rather agrees with my position as stated.
There is a Militia within the Consbreastution, mentioned explicitly in three places at least. It is now called the National Guard. It doesn't matter what it's called -- it matters what it does.
What it Does is meet all the Consbreastutional requirements of 1(8)(15-16) and 2(2)(1). It is the Only enbreasty that does that. No other does.
The other militias -- like the TN Militia -- do not depend on the US Consbreastution for their existence. They need not, and do not meet Any of the Consbreastutional requirements. They are not the Milita the US Consbreastution discusses.
Maniacal laughter becomes you. It is likewise content-free.