I don't understand what you're saying at all.
I am saying that you are correct, to a point. The Militia clause was inserted to ensure that the people have the means to overthrow the government. It performs this function by being explicit as to one reason why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The clear implication of such thinking is that LACK of such a clause would result in LACK of such ensurance. The courts would then make the same leap that they did in Gitlow. They would presume that the LACK of explicit ensurance indicates that no such meaning should be ascribed.
For example, if the First Amendment said "Discussions of changing or abolishing government being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed", then the decision in Gitlow would have been specifically prohibited. Freedom of speech alone was not sufficient to accomplish freedom of speech in Gitlow. The right to keep and bear arms would not be sufficient if some activist judge decided that our Founders could not have meant to enable the people to overthrow the government.