Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
Article 1 Section 8
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
There it is in black and white.
No interpretation required
Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.
Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.
You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.
The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose
That makes no sense.
Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia. The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime. Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US. And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US. So we are way past having a illegal government. For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.