Read the working of the various amendments. The second is unqualified in scope or range and fairly strongly worded. The First was limited to Congress, the assumption being that the states would regulte things like obscenity and slander. Please note that I'm not saying how I think things should be and I can certainly see the justification for some regulation. I'm simply pointing out that, as worded, the second amendment isn't qualified and if we want to qualify it, we should actually amend the Constitution rather than just pretending it says things that it doesn't or doesn't say things that it clearly does.
"The second is unqualified in scope or range and fairly strongly worded." Correct. The founders wanted to protect the state Militia from federal infringement in no uncertain terms. There are no limitations or restrictions in the second amendment and none are necessary.
However, if one interprets the second amendment as protecting an individual right outside of the Militia, well, that leads to the discovery of limitations and restrictions on arms and keeping and bearing that I don't see.
I agree with you. The second amendment should be formally amended if, for example, "arms" are to be limited to semi-auto rifles, shotguns and hanguns.