Fifth, our founding fathers made it quite clear what the purpose of the 2nd amendment was. It's not so that the government has superior firepower over the people; but rather, so that the people would be able to stand up to the government if it ever came down to that.
No, it wasn't. It was because the military situation for the US - with no standing armies at all - was that state militias were the heart of defense, and the founding fathers did not want any government to pass laws that might prevent the US having a good defense. In the 20th century, especially, times change and the US developed a huge military that handles that. The 2nd amendment was made obsolete in its purpose.
Saying that, it remains in effect, obsolete or not, until it's amended.
But it's also highly vague about what 'arms' means. How about meaning what it meant when adopted - you can have muskets?
You need to distinguish between 'rights you like' and what the constitution actually says.
Why did the authors include the qualifying phrase that the right is for 'a well-regulated militia'? It's for a reason. That's the purpose and context of the right.
When the US declared war on England in 1812, founding father and President James Madison told the states to have their militias go take Canada. They failed miserably. The citizens didn't want to fight outside their states at all and were untrained and ineffective and unruly. Times changed. The idea of the right is an anachronism today.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
If the founding fathers had meant 'being necessary to protect the power of the people to overthrow a corrupt government', they could have said that. They didn't.
The 'security of the state' means security from any external enemies - such as the European powers who might have attacked them.
Colonies don't need militias - they are occupied and 'protected' by the armies of the occupying power, the British troops before the freedom of the US.
But 'free states' - states who are not such colonies - did need the protection of the militias of citizens if attacked.
Much of the constitution was directly in response to things the Americans resented from the British - things like soldiers forcing themselves to be guests in homes, or searches.
The second amendment says what it says, and has a history. As much as you might think there should be a right in the constitution for citizens to defeat a corrupt government with their rifles - a pretty absurd proposition in these times, but hey - you might have a fine point, but that doesn't make the constitution say what you want.
I've had some interest to look back at the Bill of Rights' debates to see just how much discussion there was about the 'protection from tyranny' issue, but haven't checked much.