While you make some good point, Buzzcock, and in some ways the 2nd amendment is almost irrelevant, I hardly think it represents any danger to individual liberty. However, thinking that individual liberty is the most important thing is a danger in itself. I would even say that the obligations of a native Indian living in the Amazon jungle to his fellows may be greater than the obligations that most Americans feel to anyone. Have we no social obligations to anyone anymore? Is there nothing higher than self?
Speaking of the militia itself as orginally envisioned, remember that the existance of the militia was assumed. It is mentioned in the constition in two places. Congress is given power to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." The "President shall be Commander in Chief...of the Militias of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." It sort of begs the question what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, doesn't it? There is no suggestion anywhere, however, that any form of registration of weapons is necessary for the militia to be effective, nor any suggestion that they need to be provided by the members thereof. Not in the constition at least. In other national laws, such details were covered, but just go read the 2nd amendment and see how little it says. Don't skip over the first phrase, either. In any case, none of the things you mention are reasons for repealing the 2nd amendment.
Personally, as an aside, I think there is too much reliance on the national guard these days, which is unrelated to the basic issue of this thread but it's not an issue much talked about.
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.