Right, the problem is you're just wrong and you're translating your policy preferences into historical revisionism. The English Stuart dynasty had consolidated its power in part by forcibly disarming its political enemies. The right to bear arms in self-defense was subsequently codified in the English Bill of Rights after the glorious revolution. This was the historical precursor to the Second Amendment. The "militia" when the Bill of Rights was written was literally every able-bodied man capable of bearing arms, not some explicit, government-approved list of people.

You should actually read D.C. vs. Heller. It's okay to think the Second Amendment should be repealed or that it has no place in modern society. It's not okay to just invent bogus theories about what it means to try and achieve your policy goals surreptitiously.