Gun Control & RKBA

K: .. tying gun ownership to militia service despite the fact that the text of the amendment CLEARLY says the opposite.

Clearly? If the meaning had been clear, there would've been no debate the past 200 years.
If meaning were 'clear', why did the 1939 supreme court put this in the Miller decision, which was unanimous 8-0, for the militia interpreation:
... "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 in in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=210877

The 1938 Dept of Justice cited Adams in amicus brief to the 1938/39 supreme court: The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights. https://guncite.com/miller-brief.htm

So far the relevant supreme court justices have ruled 12 - 5 for the militia interpretation.

K: There are exactly three entities in the 2nd Amendment text: the (well-regulated) Militia, the States, and the People, and only one of them has the right to keep and bear arms.

Sure, the people whlle in militia duty have that right, and congress cannot infringe on that right.
Glad to see you agree that 'state' refers to the 13 states (then), rather than the 'State' writ large, as in the nation. Which gun gurus support that hypothesis? I know there's a few.

K: The unorganized militia is exactly as regulated as Congress requires it to be.

Laissez faire policy is not regulation; the unorganized militia is not regulated, it is unorganized.

K: Saying the 2nd Amendment is about "giving" states the right to have armed forces is simply incorrect.

True but specious; the 2ndA gives people the right to bear arms while in a well regulated militia, which congress cannot infringe upon.
At least that was the original intent.
Today there is NO well regulated citizens militia, and THAT entity is what IS CLEARLY written in the 2nd amendment, and described in detail 5 months later in the militia act of 1792. The unorganized militia developed circa 1830 due to scofflaws wanting to shirk their militia duty and claim they (some) had an individual rkba.