[Pitchfork]

Why bother?????! That's like asking: Why bother thinking!

You seem not to see that there the two questions are distinct:
1) is an armed citizenry needed to maintain democracy

2) does the US consitution gaurantee the right of individuals to keep and bear arms (regardless of the societal benefits OR damage this might bring)

Both are empirical questions. One is falsifiable by evidence. The other is a matter, mostly, of interpretation guided by belief and is not therefore not subject to falsification.

[Jhoffa_]

But the powers granted to the Federal Government are not, by any means arbitrary..

So, your point is moot. They don't have this power regardless, even if it is a "good idea" and "not necessary"

Period.

[Jhoffa_]

Think of prohibition... and the amendment necessary to bring it to pass on the federal level.

Now, consider how much more the BTKBA would be protected. As it is enumerated specifically.

[palmer]

1) is an armed citizenry needed to maintain democracy
2) does the US consitution gaurantee the right of individuals to keep and bear arms

Are privacy rights needed to maintain democracy? How about property rights?
The second amendment is irrelevant, unregistered guns are a natural right like any other.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"is an armed citizenry needed to maintain democracy?"

Doesn't matter, since democracy can coexist with tyranny. The armed citizenry is necessary to secure FREEDOM. As in a constitutional republic.

("...being necessary for the security of a free state...")