Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?
I don't believe that the first Americans put the 2nd amendment in for hunting rights, or because they were afraid of the natives. They wanted to ensure that the people would always serve as a check on the government. They wanted guns even back in the days where politicians publicly debated their ideas with the people, instead of leaving them as uninformed as possible. (Its humbling to read the Federalist (and anti-Federalist) papers. The first thing you notice is that the language and arguments are both advanced, and citizens (who are these days down-graded to "voters") were expected to respond to these arguments.)
Saying that the right to bear arms is no longer needed seems tantamount to saying that everyone agrees the government is perfect just the way it is, even though we know nothing about it.
