That is incorrect. Tying the militia to the right to keep and bear arms means that we have the right to have the sorts of arms that the militia needs to fulfil their duties."By the way, you do realize that the consequences of connecting the militia to the right to keep and bear arms is that everyone has the right to have grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons??"
Not at all. You have to understand that the constitution right, isn't a right at all. It's a limit on federal powers (and state now). This means that as long as people have access to certain types of arms, the right is safe. The government is not infringing on your right to keep arms if it prevents you from having nukes, bazookas, full-automatic weapons, if you have easily get your hands on pistols.
The duties of the militia include repelling foreign invasions, so that means we have the right to have weapons that are suitable for repelling a foreign invasion. That means grenades, bazookas, and full-auto weapons.
No militia is going to be able to repel a foreign invasion using only pistols.
That's OK. Self defense is a natural right that is innately possessed by everyone everywhere.Though only state governments had clauses that got anywhere near defending "himself" and whether you think "themselves" is about individuals or not, it's not in the Second Amendment.
The right is the right to bear arms. And as shown, the Founding Fathers saw this as bearing arms for the militia. Not for personal self defense.
All we need the Second Amendment for is to protect our right to have guns. So long as we have those guns, we will always have the right to defend ourselves with those guns.
I'll answer the rest later when I have more time.