We do not want to do that. Even though it took a long time, the individual right has been established and is not going be easily lost this time.
Some day, mark my words, the militia clause in the 2A is going to cut down all of the assault rifle bans, magazine capacity limits, etc. We my even get select fire.
Why? Simply because at the time of the signing of the Constitution, the militia was expected to muster out with the personal weapons of its members and with these weapons stand against invading armies.
That is still the presumed function of the militia, and to arm them with anything less than current military weapons is treasonous. To expect them to defend out country with effete magazines and hunting rifles is wrong.
Plus my deer/elk/pig/bear/cougar rifle is not suited to repelling invasions. Every state I know of requires expanding bullets for shooting game, which is what I use and inventory. But, anyone captured by an enemy will be summarily executed if he has expanding bullets in his possession. They are clearly forbidden by the Geneva Convention.
That did not deter the Federal Judiciary from making a large class of different weapons illegal under the specious claim that they were not "military" in nature in the Miller decision. Preposterously, the Court claimed in Miller that a sawed-off shotgun had no military use, and therefore could not be a weapon employed by a militia. Never mind that a standing army and a militia are two different things, nor that a sawed-off shotgun was, even at the time of Miller of general use in the US ARMY. [In fact, for my father--a BAR gunner in WWII--a sawed-off double barrel eight gauge was his side-arm of choice, which he much preferred to the 45-caliber pistol]