It only makes no sense because you claim that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from disarming state militias. It the Second Amendment acts as a bar to federal infringement of the individual right to keep and bear arms, then the Second Amendment would prohibit the federal government from disarming the federal militia.
Federal statute has defined the members of the unorganized militia without reference to state citizenship or membership in a state militia. Membership in the unorganized militia just may be one of those mysterious "privleges and immunities" of citizens of the United States mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment.
I have stated that the majority of the lower federal courts have ruled that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from disarming individuals who comprise the state militias.
"It the Second Amendment acts as a bar to federal infringement of the individual right to keep and bear arms, then the Second Amendment would prohibit the federal government from disarming the federal militia."
The federal militia? The second amendment says nothing about a federal militia. You're mixing apples and oranges.
Your problem is that we no longer have "well regulated state militias", and you're trying to force-fit and twist the meaning of the second amendment to what we do have today. It doesn't work that way.