Yeah, I responded to that ridiculous sentiment there. Let's address the other one.

First, the militia clause isn't a restriction on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The milita is necessary for a free state SO the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You're vaguely correct that the purpose was to avoid a standing army. However, you are grossly mistaken about the purpose of the Constitution in general if you think it allows state militia formation. The National Guard is a state entity that can be called to federal service, which is actually a separate organization than the State National Guards.

The National Guard is also separate, legally, by federal code, from the unorganized militia which consists of every male aged between17 and 45.

There is no such thing as a militia requirement to keep and bear arms. Per SCOTUS, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, protected but not granted by the Constitution, and applies to the states just as it does to the federal government. Heller, Cruikshank, and McDonald.

And you're still ignoring taxing a Constitutional right. Apply your idea to the first amendment. Legal? Not a chance in hell.