You are correct that authority of lawfull government consists of rights voluntarily conceded by people.
There apparently was never a case when people conceded their rights to bear arms or accepted limitation of those rights in favor of the federal government.
That is the whole point that people decide which rights to concede after a deliberate process of constitutional amendment, not when someone "sees no need or desirability...".
I mean, you see no need of desirability for some people to have certain types of arms, I see no need for some people to procreate.
I could even make a case that if you allow to restore sterilisation laws under which tens of thousands of people with low-IQ were sterilised in US in 1920s-30s, we will have sharp drop in gun violence and other crime and have no need to ban weapons.
As for types of weapons, it is very clear from the wording of a Constitution and writings of the Founding Fathers that the right to bear arms referred to military weapons (assault-type in modern double-speak), not just sport or hunting pieces.
After all, the second amendment refers to "militia", not "hunting clubs". They explicitly ment weapons that would be equal to ones of government troops - if a tyrant were to attempt a power grab using military.
miko