Gun Control & RKBA

jmg: Unfortunately, per federal code the UNorganized militia IS still subject to being called forth. Whether a good idea or not.

Sure, I agree, the UN-organized militia can be called up by governors & I guess the president too. But it hasn't, except for the irrelevant inconsequential instance in wwII, where 5,000 half wwI vets showed up out of maybe 150 million americans?

Ask any governor about calling up thousands of american adult UNorganized militia members to mobilize someplace with their firearms. IE activating their state's Unorg'd militia. Same as activating an UNorganized MOB.
An unorganized mob which includes proportionally mostly non gun owners, many of whom would balk at showing up anywhere where hundreds of untrained gun owners would be carrying firearms, loaded or not. Democrats and republicans; christians and jewish and muslims & hindus & buddhists; white supremists & democrat socialists; adolescents & older guys; drunks, alcos, druggies, unidentified criminals, & law abidings citizens; mixed into just one big happy family, eh? a good portion of them with guns & ammo.
I suppose a lot of southern governors might do it if the police & state guards were overwhelmed, but hardly any sane democrat governor would - they'd let the president federally activate adjoining states, right? And how many HAVE? sure they call up unarmed volunteers in declared emergencies, but never have I seen activation of an armed UNorganized militia. It would be potentially worse than the problem at hand.

jmg: With the re-creation of the State Militias into the National Guard, the "necessary" part of the 2nd seems to be covered. Does leaving the people subject to being called into militia service (even though clearly not the constitutional militias) give some grounds for the right to arms?

No I don't see it, not using even pro gun reasoning; of course the National Guards (NG) is a well regulated militia which personally I would agree fits the 2ndA preamble, but since it doesn't represent 'the people', can't justify the 2nd clause.
Anti federalists, which as most of us know detested a standing army & wanted the 'people' to bear arms, hated select militias (of which the current national guard is) and desired a well regulated citizens militia:

Anti-federalist view, expressed by Richard Henry Lee: "A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary... First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine {??} and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia ― useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permament interests and attachments in the community is to be avoided. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…. http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm
(Note that the 'whole body of the people' he mentions would de facto be just adult white males, probably need be land or property owners as well)

"The necessity of an armed populace, protection against disarming of the citizenry, and the need to guard against a select militia and assure a real militia which could defend liberty against any standing forces the government might raise were topics interspersed throughout the ratification period."

So, the current national guard select militia would not fit the 2nd amendment. True, the current UNorganized militia would be a citizens militia, but obviously is not what FF and james madision envisioned in 2ndA by a 'well regulated militia', and certainly not what the militia act of 1792 envisioned in yearly muster, officers, pay & mobilization points, etc.
No longer is there any citizen's militia as envisioned by the founding fathers in the militia act of 1792. There is indeed a select militia the NG, but that is what anti federalist FF held in contempt and not what they envisioned. Unorganized is not well regulated, nuff said.

As bill maher & jon stewart & many talking heads have poked fun at numerous times in the past, the FF, the 2nd Amendment & the militia act of 1792 created a well regulated citizens militia with the right to keep & bear arms, to defend against dreaded standing armies and select militias.
Yet what exists today? A very powerful standing army, floating navy, flying air force, and a well regulated select militia. But there is no longer any well regulated citizen's militia as envisioned iin 1791.
Thus obvious to some of us, the 2nd amendment is worthless and obsolete, & should be rescinded just as the militia act of 1792 was done away with by the militia act circa 1903, which rendered the militia system envisioned by the FF as indeed worthless and obsolete (their very words if I remember correctly).