That is a very selective reading of some of the founding documents.
For example: First
the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
Then to back that up he uses arguments about ratifying the Constitution not the Second Amendment.
As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Obviously talking up the point of protection from a Standing Army built right in. (which, you've got to admit, doesn't really apply today does it?)
Then he switches back to the meaning of the 2nd with an article by Tench Coxe to enforce the notion that the overridng principle was a check upon the national government's standing army.
I'm still going with it was more about national securty first, then personal security. Never about keeping a check on a standing army.
And you would be wrong as the Founders, knew that if attacked by foreign powers, there needed to be a central command to coordinate the resistance force. Thus they did allow a provision in the Constitution to raise an army if necessary. But as I have subsequently documented, they also strongly feared the misuse of that same army by an unscrupulous would be dictator. Thus they never intended the federal government to have authority over the militias which would be every citizen of the USA who had a dualing pistol or hunting musket or knife or sword or any other weapon at his disposal to use. Likely more than a few dragged a cannon home for a souvenir.
???
Congress:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The President:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;"
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
Yup, that's what it said. Remember, EVERY CITIZEN was considered a member of the militia in their respective states. And it was these citizens that the federal government would need to call should they be needed to defend the country. But in the wording you posted, the states maintained authority for appointment of officers and training to meet specifications the federal government would provide. There was no indication that any person or state for that matter could be required to defend their country, but their country could ask them to do so. And this clause of the Constitution was set up to provide a structure to manage the volunteers when they responded.
The text and interpretation must be read through the eyes of those who wrote down and signed off on the wording and ultimately ratified it.