I think we could all agree it could have drafted a little more precisely. There is something to your argument that it reflected the idea that militias could be raised more or less on an ad hoc basis from the available citizenry. So they needed to have guns, and back then, the most feasible way to do that was for people to have their own guns. It's perhaps less clear to me than you that this justification is no longer valid.
I have a problem however with unelected judges deciding that it is time to sunset a constitutional right. Once you cross that line, where do you stop? It's not like the federal judiciary is plagued by judges who are too timid in exercising their authority. They make up rights everyday, eg that homosexuals suddenly after 250 years have a constitutional right to get married. Like the abortion issue, reasonable people can take different sides on the underlying issue of gay marriage, but removing it from the democratic process by declaring it a constitutional right is the antithesis of self government. It is rule by unelected judicial dictators.
I have a problem however with unelected judges deciding that it is time to sunset a constitutional right. Once you cross that line, where do you stop? It's not like the federal judiciary is plagued by judges who are too timid in exercising their authority. They make up rights everyday, eg that homosexuals suddenly after 250 years have a constitutional right to get married. Like the abortion issue, reasonable people can take different sides on the underlying issue of gay marriage, but removing it from the democratic process by declaring it a constitutional right is the antithesis of self government. It is rule by unelected judicial dictators.