Interesting point bringing the Selective Service requirement in for that purpose. I like it.
Conversely, what I DON'T like is when the anti's use that terminology (well-regulated militia) to insist the 2A does NOT apply to individuals, but the Gov't.
Now we all know the Supreme Court and dozens of Federal Court rulings have come down in FAVOR of 2A for individuals and not the state. We also know the current socialist regime and all the appointed goombas are extremely anti-gun, and against the 2A applying to individuals. (Thereby making them against the Constitution - this isn't news.)
The part of the argument the anti's fail to connect is the complete lack of consistency of their view. If ALL the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are intended for the individual citizen being protected AGAINST an out-of-control Gov't, then HOW can the 2A be the exception?! It just doesn't stand up. Of course it was written FOR the people, and NOT FOR the state.
I think the Selective Service aspect could be a powerful tool to dismiss the old myth that the 2A is "an out-dated concept" for a "time long ago." The 2A is still relevent, valid and effectual, regardless of how some feel about it.