I'd say it was meant more as a guarantee that the central government is thereby permanently reminded of the constitutional limitations on its power, and that should it attempt to usurp the Powers of the States, the people have the means to do something about it. Should the states be incapable of acting, the duty falls by default to the citizenry themselves.
Should the constitution promises of individual rights then be contravened or suspended, then it is not only those portions of the Bill of Rights that are affected, but the entire constitutional contract between government and governed that is thereby rendered moot, null and void. Neither can it be restored by simply restoring the rights previously suspended; the entire constitutional practice of ratification by each of the states would again be necessary for the constitution to again become valid.
Neither would the U.S. government have any legitimate authority in the interm; the establishment of the government and of the United States itself, as described in Sections I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII of the Constitution, would completely cease to be valid.
Thus the framers insistance that the people have the means to keep the Constitutioon alive, even if the Central government and those of the states did not.
So then would it not follow that the citizenry must be armed with arms which would allow it to resist effectively the arms of the standing army of the central government?
Exactly so. Or else there is no central government, just another criminal gang that's equipped and dressed a little better than most of the others.
So then the people ought to have the right to keep weapons systems effective agianst Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, and Trident subs, is that right?