You are just as bad as Trump with his "anchor baby" interpretation of the 14 amendment that he wants changed.
First since the national guard can be activated at any time by the president for whatever war or military action he deems necessary (regardless of what the state or governor thinks) and is under the jurisdiction of the standing active military its role as the militia is nebulous at best.
https://www.upcounsel.com/lectl-the-second-amendment-the-framers-intentions
"
What Was the Purpose of the Second Amendment?
The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described
the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army. As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Thus, the well-regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State." This was because a militia, so regulated, might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."