Well said. This is another issue that gets bogged down by those who would seek to destroy the 2A. The two separate clauses contained within. The first to prevent the Federal government from destroying the militia. The second to prevent the Federal government from removing arms from the citizenry.
Then one must logically assume that the Citizenry must possess arms superior to those which would be used by the Federal government to dis-arm the Citizenry.
To be under-armed with less firepower would render the Second Amendment useless and pave the way for a tyrannical government which would have an easy win over the Citizens.
If the Amendment was written for the purpose you suggest, then it is for the People to establish the rules of engagement and the weapons to be used therein -- NOT the government.
"The second to prevent the Federal government from removing arms from the citizenry ... in order for them to form the militia mentioned in the first part.
At least, that's the way the courts (other than in Emerson) have read it.
What is your opinion of why the Founding Fathers even put in the first clause? Certainly if the FF intent was that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed, it wasn't necessary, was it, to say why it was not to be infringed?