Better result alternative path

I have just noticed yesterday night that there is an alternative path to the sufficiency argument I made in the earlier post that could lead to better result. I noticed that instead of questioning the current interpretation for the second amendment regarding the type of arms allowed to the public,I can build on it with that sufficiency argument.What could help even more in that regard is that those two arguments (limitations on arm types and my sufficiency argument )are not necessarily mutually exclusive and can be independent of each other. If the view for the currently allowed arms to the public is based on their being common or descendants of arms that were common at the time of the second amendment then that still wouldn't contradict the argument that the intention was to allow the creation of a militia that is equipped to fight on the same scale open to others and the government. That is because at that time wars can be fought and won in a big part depending on these types of arms. Like I said earlier "necessary" in the second amendment imply sufficiency.So if the second amendment was about arms that were commonly held by the public during that time then it follows from that that based on the second amendment itself the second amendment has been no longer applicable for a long time because these arms are very far away from empowering the creation of a militia that is sufficiently equipped to stand to any military with explosives, tanks, missiles ,airplanes and other military weapons. In other words, if the intention behind the second amendment was to prevent any law making common public arms that can make a public militia sufficiently equipped for a military battle illegal then it came with its own time limit which had expired a long time ago.