Pedantic comment of the day, and on HN that's quite a contest. There's no functional difference between those two things.
> You're arguing about something entirely different here
No, I'm arguing the same point you were originally, until you were conclusively proven wrong and moved the goalposts.
Yes there is. If the criteria for membership in a club is that you have to be an able bodied male, that doesn't mean every able bodied male is a member of the club. It means an able bodied male could potentially choose to join the club. The US Code says they're in the club whether they want to or not.
>No, I'm arguing the same point you were originally, until you were conclusively proven wrong and moved the goalposts.
My point was never that a militia could perform same actions as military or law enforcement, YOU were the one who moved the goalposts. You didn't prove jack shit wrong.
>You might consider yourself a member of such a militia
You can consider yourself in or out the militia or not. That doesn't make it fact, from a legal perspective. For government's purposes though I would use government's law, which tells us able-bodied military age males, generally, are in a militia.
> notably to perform any military or law enforcement function - you must be under state or federal command.
Um, the thread we're both replying to was about 'every state has laws making it illegal to be a member of a private armed militia.' You're arguing about something entirely different here, that is about state laws (not under purview of DoJ) that limit uses of militia.