But for the purpose of militia in this context and therefore that of the 2nd amendment, the power of Congress over the militia is deemed "unlimited" [0]. As such, regulating it's use of arms would be well within it's remit.

[0] https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-mili...

... as long as such regulation does not infringe the right of the people to keep or bear arms for all the purposes envisioned by the constitutional framers.

Wikipedia has an excellent reference on this. See the "Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution" section: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Unit...

The purposes of the framers appears to be a well regulated militia, and that militia subject to "unlimited" control by congress. I agree this would mean congress could not dismantle or subvert the purpose of the militia, but having tight controls over the weaponry at their disposal when not in a state of current or imminent battle would not seem to so undermine it. After all, even the professional military have much, much more tightly controlled access to & tracking of firearms than is imposed in civil society. It is hard to credit an argument that would say militia could not reasonably & constitutionally mirror those same controls.

See the Wikipedia article - it mentions several further purposes both separate from and contained in the notion of a militia.