...though now I'm even more curious about how you'd answer mine from earlier.
I wrote out a comprehensive answer to your question, tried to address as many of your points as possible, but decided it was just WAY too long, so I pared it back to the very basics, which still ended up longer than I'd hoped. If I don't fully answer every part of what you discussed, it's not that I'm avoiding it, I'm just trying to keep this response readable by staying with the very heart and spirit of the matter.
To "bear arms" implies a person is able to carry or "bear" that firearm. For the purposes of the second amendment it's generally been accepted as the category of "small arms". As things stand today I'd generally agree with that. There are a few fine points I'd nitpick and argue as to where EXACTLY to draw the line, but overall I agree the Second Amendment essentially applies to small arms. Not nuclear missiles, which is the inflammatory argument so often thrown around in these discussions.
Federal gun control is based on, what was considered at the time to be a specious legal argument. I still consider it to be so. They screwed up in 1934. IF there is going to be any legislation regarding firearms, I think it falls under the jurisdiction of the individual states, as it is not a power that was explicity granted to the federal government under the Constitution. It's up to the citizens of each state to decide what constitutes "infringement" and vote for their leadership accordingly.
Whether we like it or not some states will pass laws that will infringe, perhaps heavily, on the Second Amendment. If you find yourself in such a state, it's your choice whether to try to help elect new leadership, or if all else fails, move to a different state. I believe the federal government should keep it's nose out of it entirely.
I'll give one practical example as to why the feds should stay out of it, and it's an example that goes to the heart of the matter of why federal gun laws are ridiculous.
Most laws regulating specific firearms or their features focus on whether that weapon or feature has a "sporting use". Currently, all it takes to add or remove something from that "sporting" category is an order from the head of the ATF. One single person. A person who is appointed by and generally does whatever the president tells him to do. It's very arbitrary and prone to abuses of power.
This made-up category often seems to boil down to just how "mean" a weapon looks. Plenty of formerly-legal weapons have been reclassified and the owners of those weapons have very little recourse. Basically all they can do is register it as an NFA weapon (if they're allowed to, they're not permitted in some arbitrary cases) or turn it in to be destroyed. Some of these weapons are worth quite a lot of money, and for the government to seize it (or ORDER you to hand it over, which equates to the same thing) without fair compensation, is unconstitutional. To top it all off, I don't recall seeing anything about "sports" mentioned in the second amendment.