If I really have the right to bear arms--

[branford]

46. No right is "absolute or unlimited."

We have an entire body of detailed and complicated law to determine the nature and type of restrictions permitted on fundamental rights. SCOTUS, in Heller and McDonald, even reviewed some of the permissible restrictions on firearm ownership, including the current no felons and dangerously mental ill rules. I can confidently state that you have no need to worry that the Second Amendment will allow your neighbor to arm himself with a hydrogen bomb or weaponized anthrax.

SCOTUS also explicitly discussed you second inquiry, and I encourage you to read the decisions.

Simply the militia clause can be "meaningful," in the sense of being explanatory, without needing to be dismissed or disregarded.

However, the related claim that the Second Amendment only guaranteed a "collective right" protecting the militia is ludicrous within the context and history of the Bill of Rights (it would be the only collective right in a set of limitations on government against the People and States). The militia limitation claims are little more than desperate attempts to nullify a part of the Constitution that many find inconvenient and where there's absolutely no support for repeal.