This whole topic reminds me of the concept of "Get them asking the wrong questions and you don't have to worry about the answers."
The 2A in the United States Constitution, like all other amendments and provisions, applies to restrictions on the national government's power to limit the behavior of the states first, sometimes entire groups of people and sometimes the individual people directly.
The COTUS restrictions, the Bill of Rights, was not intended to and should not be seen as a set of restrictions against first the states and most especially individual people. Incorporation, I believe, is an incorrect concept. As I've said before, if the COTUS applies to the states, what would be the purpose of the state constitutions?
So many people now are so blinded, so convinced that EVERYTHING is at once "unconstitutional" and that somehow the BoR restricts individual freedom. The courts continue to contribute to the blindness and wrongheaded thinking.
The 2A is about the national government disarming the people. That's all. It's not about the militia. It's not about the states, they almost universally have their OWN "2As".
It's the wrong question people are asking and the answers don't matter.
The people are supposed to be FREE. The national government is supposed to PROTECT them, primarily from foreign threats.
The BoR was intended to restrict the encroachment of the government against the people.
How are we asking "Does this or that provisions guarantee this or that right?"?? They are restrictions against government interference, they restrict the government, that's why there's a clause that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If it ain't provided for in the COTUS, the national government CAN'T DO IT!!
The powers apply to them and the limits apply to them ONLY!
Most of these fights we're fighting should be fought at the state level. The national government should be small and limited in scope, the COTUS is relatively short and simple and so should be the government that it creates.
It saddens me, the way we apply these principles today.
The progression of the Amendments themselves shows the descent that we have followed...
We go from:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances...
Which is unarguably one of the most important premises of a free people, to:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Seriously? We amend the most important document in our nation so as to regulate someone's paycheck?! Really!
Our entire national foundation is printed on 6 (rather large) pages and now we pass laws that are thousands of pages long and no one has read or could possibly understand in full.
How could we understand such bills?
We have one simple sentence:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
that we can't seem to understand.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.