The people do not organize the militia. The government does, although in a sense, the people do organize the government. The people (that is, some of the people) embody the militia--just as they (that is, some of them) embody the government. That all applies to all the governments we live under, naturally.
Comparison with prohibition of alcohol is interesting, though none of what you say would follow is necessarily so. It doesn't seem to have worked that way in places where guns are either banned or highly regulated, none of which have banned alcohol as far as I know, except in Muslim countries that are even more religious than we ever were. It would be a noble experiment, though, and in fact, alcohol is still banned in some places, including where Jack Daniels is produced. The saying is that they will vote themselves dry as long as they can stagger to the polls. Remember also that one of the first times the militia was called out by the national government was over an issue of taxes and alcohol. There seems to be no escaping basic issues.
I don't think it is at all evident that deterring tyrannical government was one of the reasons but it correct to say that some then did not want a strong central government, same as today (I imagine). But what would we be without one? I likewise see no suggestion that participating in law enforcement being one of the reasons either.
There seem to be a lot of worries about tyrants. You know, Lincoln was called a tyrant. He was also a republican. In any event, I see you are willing for there to be fairly severe and probably arbritary restrictions on firearm ownership. Such restrictions have existed in some places in the past as a way of controlling voting but no doubt you have nothing like that in mind. Still, it's an interesting idea. Not sure if it's conservative or liberal. Restriction gun ownership is a conservative thing.
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.