The thing that no one seems to remember about the 2A is that it was meant to establish a militia as opposed to a standing army, which was seen as an inherent threat to liberty. Obviously opinions on that subject have changed over the years, particularly after the militia let DC burn.
That does seem like a justifiable interpretation, and I'm inclined to agree. They mentioned militia for a reason. And it makes sense -- if the point of arming the citizenry is as a check on federal tyranny, then a militia is how it will have to happen. The idea that the 2A is about self-defense seems a very recent interpretation.
> 7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people of any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;...
* The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents (December 18,1787)
