"clear" seems a bit of an overstatement
Fair enough.
The view implied here, it seems, isn't that militia membership should be a pre-requisite for the ownership of arms, but that the popular ownership of arms is a prerequisite for being able to form a militia.
Yes, but even that would tie the right to bear arms closely to the benefits of having a state militia.
The precise view so recently lampooned by some here
Not quite. The idea lampooned here is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to empower individuals or small groups would take on the federal government and that such a need justifies individuals having matching fire power at home. Some people even expressed the idea that democracy could not exist without this matching power. Jon expanded on that idea to argue that the Wilmington Massacre was democracy in action.
Those ideas are quite a bit different from a state militia using officers trained by the state of South Carolina to organize a resistance.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison