For those people without the Letter of Marquee, the Second Amendment attains, and we are isolating and discussing this topic
They cannot be totally separated. The 2A is not strictly about individual self defense and cannot be argued as if it is solely in that context.
The question is whether or not individuals may own what you term indescriminate weapons. The Constitution makes no distinction making your distinction artificial.
If individuals cannot own weapons and implements of war, then there is no need for letters of marque. However, it seems that the founders contemplated the notion that the federal government might not have all the resources it needed to accomplish the mission, therefore relying on individuals who owned those resources.
The 2A guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without infringement and nothing in the Constitution, except what you invent, places any restrictions on ownership.
Now I might not like my neighbor growing cultures of bacteria, brewing VX, or hoarding plutonium in his garage, but I cannot find where the Constitution prevents it.
But, as I said before, when your 'common sense' restricts some weapons and not others, you open the door to other people like HCI promoting their idea of common sense.
I'm sorry, the Founding Fathers appear to disagree. If they meant the Letters of Marque to be an issue related to the Second Amendment, I imagine they would have either mentioned Letters of Marque in the 2A or they would have mentioned the 2A in the clause establishing the Letters of Marque. Being as neither is the case, they are clearly distinct issues, and this essay is focused strictly on the Second Amendment.