Also pretty clear that it was specifically for a "well-armed and regulated militia"

Except that's not the case. Here is the full text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If you go through writings from that era you'll notice that while the vocabulary changes (I'll get to that), the grammar is virtually identical to modern English.

If you reread the amendment with that in mind, you'll notice that the first clause doesn't actually say anything actionable. It's just an explanation. Isolating the second clause of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" doesn't change the meaning of what's being said.

Now, why did the Framers decide to include an explanation into the 2nd Amendment, but not the others? That's hard to say. But I can at least expand on the context of the first clause.

Remembered how I said that vocabulary has changed? That's unfortunately what happened with the first clause a bit At the time, the term "regulated" actually referred to being trained and equipped.

The term "militia" has also been distorted over time in common vernacular. What most people commonly think of as a "militia" like the National Guard is more precisely called an "organized militia". In contrast, an "unorganized militia" refers to all able-bodied men of military age, at the time considered to be ages 16-45. Basically anyone that could be drafted in war.

This is important when you consider US military doctrine up until WWII. In times of peace, the US Army kept a small corp of professional officers, with the intent to draft men into the Army as needed whenever war is declared. Then once war was over, all the drafted men were sent back and the Army was shrunk back down.

This doctrine present a major logistics problem: when war breaks out, you need a lot of fighting men in a short amount of time. To alleviate this problem, you want the draftees (aka the unorganized militia) to already have much of the skills and equipment needed to fight, with one of these critical skills being marksmanship. Hence why the Framers found it necessary to national defense for the populous to be able to have their own weapons.

To change gears, there's another argument I want to make: gutting and/or removing one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights sets a dangerous precedent. While the 21st amendment exists to nullify the 18th, we've never done that to any of the original 10 amendments. If the 2nd is abolished, why why not abolish the 4th, or the 5th, or even the 1st? That's a dangerous precedent.

And while there's the stereotypical argument of "you can't take on jets and tanks with AR15's", the US lost Vietnam and Afghanistan, and arguably Iraq too. And that's with the coffers and supply lines protected by an entire ocean. While a civil war would be horrifying, having that proverbial nuclear button pressures the government into somewhat caring what the populous thinks.

Further, it's not beyond the pale to make it that our weapons should be registered so that if they're used in committing a crime

Unfortunately, with the particular "administration" in charge at the moment I wouldn't feel comfortable with them having a list of who has weapons. That'd make it easier for them to go after potential armed resistance early, allowing them to go full authoritarian.

Honestly, it's in our best bet to stop pushing for gun control. That'd get rid of one of the big reasons that more moderate conservatives don't vote for Democrats. Especially since we could instead put that effort into education, healthcare, labor rights, etc. which would do a much better job of reducing violent crime while making everyone's lives better. There's only so much political capital that a candidate and party can have, and it's best spent where it would do the most good.