I agree with the above arguments against CM but I'd like to add one more as a sidebar, the Washington State Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 24, states:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

This clause explicitly protects the right of individual citizens to bear arms for self-defense and defense of the state, not solely as members of a militia. The language emphasizes personal self-defense as well as state defense, distinguishing it from a collective or militia-only interpretation. However, it also clarifies that this right does not extend to forming private armed groups. This interpretation aligns with court rulings, such as State v. Gohl (1907), where Washington courts have recognized the individual right to bear arms for self-defense, subject to reasonable regulations. The clause’s focus on "the individual citizen" makes your argument wrong, at least in Washington State.

Oh and I know we live in Washington State but our constitution is one of the longer State constitutions to make the same natural law concepts as codifed in the 2nd Amendment more clear and precise so there are no mistakes like yours Carcassman. So as written in Washington State I have an individual right to bear arms to protect myself and I guess the state if I want to and that right shall not be impaired which means diminished, damaged, or weakened.