History would disagree with you.
Washington proposed a plan to RIF the army and Congress approved it; dropping the US army to 500 infantry and 100 artillery personnel total. They did this to eliminate the power of a central, federal government from being able to impose its will on the people. Instead, and what the Founders envisioned, was that each state would protect itself with militia and if there was a threat to the nation at large, Congress could...ask...for militia to travel outside of their respected states to aid in the defense of the nation.
So, the Founders already had what they thought to be a solution to limit the might of the central government. When it became time to do away with the Articles of Confederation and the to create the Constitution (and then the Bill of Rights), they still relied on militias to provide overall defense for each individual state and for the nation at large. The US professional army had, by this point, become the Legion of the United States and had grown, but only to 5,120 personnel. Still not enough to provide a defense of the nation, or a state, on its own.
When the Bill of Rights were written, they kept in mind of a speech that Washington wrote (and is often misquoted by the right) that detailed his wish for American manufacturers to create affordable firearms for the populace since the new nation's government was so cash strapped they would not have been able to fund the armaments and ammunition for each state's militia. So, when the 2nd Amendment was written, it was made so that there could be no obstacle to private ownership of firearms so that the average male citizen could fufill their duties to serve in a militia. This was, in that moment of time, the most economical way to arm a militia.
The Founders didn't really concentrate that much on the private use of the firearm by its owner. Rather, they wanted to make sure that a militia would be well regulated and armed by allowing the individual to privately own the firearm they would use to defend the nation with as opposed to the government purchasing the firearms it couldn't afford. The 2nd Amendment is really about the defense of state and country. It was basically taken for granted that citizens were responsible owners of firearms and would only use them for self-protection (Indians and animals) or to provide meals for families or meat or furs for profit. But the 2nd does NOT address that aspect...just the part of using a privately owned firearm and not to be infringed upon in matters of protection of state and nation.
And that's the problem with the 2nd. I think, honestly, that a re-wording to reflect the current times so that American citizens can have firearms as the need for militias no longer exist, it was never meant to keep the US government in check to begin with, and to expand the private ownership and define what that means.