when empowering the federal government did surrender some specific limited powers over some arms, specifically the weapons of open, indiscriminate warfare.
As you say, powers were assigned to the government which include raising a militia to counter attacks on the country and its people. An appropriate division of arms between an active militia or army and individuals has been a topic for the courts and legislatures ever since. Such was the origin of the Miller case. In Miller neither Miller (who was dead) nor his lawyer appeared to make any case nor to present any evidence.
The last time I ask a pro-restriction person here about conflating the 2A with its topic the RKBA I got no answer:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172211121#post32
IMO one way pro-RKBA folks 'shoot themselves in the foot' is by referring to "second amendment rights." I am equally offended by the term "gun-control". The RKBA is not derived from the 2A nor does "gun-control" actual control the criminals.
Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."