My wife, who is a good Democrat, does not like guns, and can't understand why we are allowed to have them. Several of my more urbane friends share her belief systems, and think it unnecessary to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.
The problem with the 2nd Amendment, is that it really is very clear. Congress shall make no law for the restriction of the right to keep and bear arms. If you think that this is an archaic meaning, and no longer appropriate, then move to repeal the Amendment. Just don't say that it is not what it says. If you do that, what is next? Does the 1st Amendment really say that the people have the right to peacefully assemble? Maybe in the age of post 9-11 we don't really mean that. Further, why don't we force defendants to explain themselves? Or why should we be free from unreasonable searches and siezures? If you have nothing to hide, why would you care?
It is only a small step from saying one part of the Constitution doesm't mean what it says to saying that nothing that you read means what it says.
When the framers of the Constitution came up with the most brilliant document of the Enlightenment, they did not look to the government to safeguard their rights, they looked to the people to keep the government in check. We seem to have forgotten that, and tend to believe the government with an unquestioning bias to whatever they say.
We need to reassert our responsibility to keep the government in check, and not allow nibbling at the edges, for fear that the whole thing will soon disappear.