The Federalists were generally against the Bill of Rights on the premise that it was unnecessary under a republican form of government. The Anti-federalists had pushed for it on the premise that all power is derived from the people and that they wanted protections from possible government overreach (if they were alive today...).
Ignoring that, if the purpose was to avoid a standing army, then what was the intended purpose of avoiding a standing army? Then we also have to ask, who owns the arms of the militia if the concern was a tyrannical government? How were the weapons sourced for the suppression of the whiskey rebellion? Also, how is militia defined (check out US Code 10 ss 246)?
We can also look at state constitutions that were created around that same time and how their wordings do include it as an individual right.
It's a reasonable question to ask the utility of the Second Amendment when the country has, for over a century, held a large, permanent standing army.
If a government has a standing army and becomes tyrannical, it could be hard to abolish that government if the government has the means to use force and the people don't. I'd say that still gives it utility.
Even if it doesn't give it utility, the proper way to remove any constitutional rights is to amend the constitution.
Not practically in this era. Anyone who thinks America's private arms stores would turn back army-backed tyranny haven't heard of drones, missiles, or modern information warfare technology.
The US was held back by international norms in Afghanistan. International norms tend to be softer on intervention for internal conflicts (and the primary source of muscle for such intervention is usually the US; not clear who would step in to keep a US deploying its own army against its own citizenry from committing as many war crimes as it finds necessary to suppress uprising). Contrast with how the US actually fought a civil war, which included 13 massacres and a civilian-targeted slash-and-burn campaign to break the morale of the Confederacy by making the tangible cost of the war felt by the citizenry supporting the military. Ultimately, you can't rebel from a city reduced to bedrock by a nuclear weapon, and the US has a lot of isolated cities that a hypothetical internal military-engaged civil war could use as an example.
The tool that holds the US back from military coup is good military and civilian leadership and the ultimate benefit not being outweighed by the cost (someone who wants political power can work with the existing systems to get elected, or get someone elected who aligns with their worldview). The Second Amendment was not a bad idea, but its goals didn't really bear out in practice (other than, perhaps, creating the doctrinal guardrails that encouraged creation of the National Guard. And even the Guard is ultimately under Federal control, thanks to the laws from '86 and '07).
Even so, it's a preamble, not a qualification. The second part is explicit it's an individual right, not a state right.
Still, I think the rememdy is to amend it out if it is no longer useful; I agree with the plain interpretation that the right is an individual right, not a state right. The preamble can be part of a rational argument for the 2nd Amendment's lack of utility toward the end of repealing it; the argument can start with something like "The Second Amendment's preamble gives justification to its inclusion in the Constitution. That justification clearly doesn't apply to the modern world because modern civil defense looks nothing like what the Founders envisioned. It's time to ask whether the Second Amendment places contortions on proper regulation of deadly weapons that hinder a free and happy society in the 21st century."
Well-regulated includes well-armed and that is what it means in context. How I would put it in modern language:
It's important that a large portion of the populace can be called upon to fight against threats to freedom and society. To ensure that the citizens are prepared to do so, they must be allowed to keep and practice with weapons of war.
Personally, I'm fine with discussing a repeal of the 2nd amendment; it's a perfectly valid question if it makes sense in a modern context. But that question is mostly academic since it's so politically unlikely to happen as it has broad support and the evidence against it isn't supermajority-level.
I think the governing circumstance is that the law is assumed to not be a suicide pact, but I lack sufficient case history to really have the zen of how common-law precedent and the US legislature has squared the circle of "shall not be infringed" vs. various licensures, taxes, and bans applied.
Perhaps worth considering is that two of the restrictions - automated rifles and sawed-off shotguns - come from an era where organized crime began out-gunning the police. This may shed light on the question.