Justices Thomas and Sotomoyor recently (in Digital Realty Trust v. Somers) wrote dueling concurrences on how to interpret a statute. Sotomoyor, like you do, thinks a statute's plain meaning (or, as here, the words to the Constitution) can be ignored and its "purpose" discerned by reference to Senate and Committee reports (or, as you contend, by the Federalist papers). Justice Thomas, on the other hand, argued that the Court is "governed by what Congress enacted rather than by what it intended".
Justice Thomas reveals why your insistence that the Second Amendment's purpose be gleaned from the Federalist papers is nonsense. The Constitution, like a statute, means what it says. The RKBA, as enunciated in the 2A , cannot be divorced from the predicate clause, and its plain meaning is that the right is a collective right, for the purpose of securing the men and materials needed to comprise the contemplated citizen militia needed to secure the "free state". It is by no means a license for revolution, as you contend, certainly not in the context of a Constitutional Republic.
The INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms derives from the natural right of individual self defense of home and property. That right wasn't confirmed for the first two centuries of the Republic, until Justice Scalia's decision in Heller. A brilliant and necessary decision, but entirely inconsistent with the 2A's predicate clause.
It is my view that the individual right does NOT derive from the 2A, but from the same "penumbras and emanations" that led earlier Courts to find individual, natural rights of privacy and self-determination, and ultimately, the right to abortion.
Both the abortion right and the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense are equally susceptible to regulation. The rights cannot be denied, but they can be made subject to the community's reasonable rules. In short, if you contend the community can ban abortion after 20 weeks, then the community can equally require that your guns be registered and insured.
You would proclaim that Original Intent can be best determined by the thinking of modern justices than the stated intent of those who advocated the very Amendment we discuss. Poppycock. If you want to know what the founders meant you need go no farther than the writings of the advocates of the Constitution, nor any farther than the plain English of the Amendment itself. The Federalist Papers stated the reason for the protection of the Right, that being the very protection of the Republic. As for how protected, the language is clear:
"...the RIGHT
OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
"Of the people" meaning an individual Right (as in all other cases where that reservation is made in the Constitution and Bill of Rights), and "shall not be infringed" (not "may", but "SHALL", implying a more strict standard of compliance) meaning kept without encumbrance.
It IS that simple.
There is no codified "right to abortion", nor would such exist which would fly in the face of the proclaimed unalienable Rights to LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the document which laid out the very justification for the break with the English Crown, nor can the argument be made that, in an age when many children were lost to disease or misfortune at an early age, and in which those children were valued additions to the family that any "right to slaughter the unborn" would in any be found in original intent, or as one of those Rights granted by the selfsame Nature's God who granted all others.
That alleged "right", which contradicts the unalienable Right to Life declared in the Declaration, is wholly a fabrication of the Court, and not a "right" expressed anywhere in nature where other creatures fight to the death to ensure their progeny.
How do you possibly make the argument that the codified and protected, enumerated Right to freely own the tools needed to protect against tyranny and if necessary, to kill those who would take life or liberty can be infringed on the one hand, and then in the same response advocate the unfettered alleged "right" to slaughter innocent children, just at an earlier age?
There is a serious cognitive disconnect present in those arguments coupled, and a contradiction the Founders would not have tolerated.