Here's the thing: Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a standing army and saw it as a tool of oppressors. If you want a second amendment, you need to also support defunding the military and a return to militias and mercenaries. But that's not usually the argument presented. Also there's been a federal standing army basically since the US was founded.

Now, let's go to Madison, the father of the Constitution and all that. He firmly opposed a professional (i.e. standing) army when he wrote the constitution. Tool of tyrants, yadda yadda. However, President Madison who exists 30 years in the future, comes out and says "I could never have believed so great a difference existed between regular troops and a militia force, if I not witnessed the scenes of this day." in response to 2 state militias getting demolished by the British Army.

IDK. They put the 2nd amendment in, and then immediately undermine the philosophical point of governance it's meant to make. Democracy is weird, government is hard, and coming up with 100% accurate statements about the unified sentiments of a group of dozens/hundreds of people from 250 years ago is impossible. I guess that's my point?