Forget about the Second Amendment or the Constitution itself.
In Locke's Second Treatise on Government (1690) he argued that the individual right of self-defense (and hence the right to possess and use such tools as are suitable for self-defense) is the first law of nature, and that any person or government that attempts to inhibit this right thereby seeks to make others his slaves. He also argues that a the right to self-defense is equivalent to the right to life itself, and that no person can contract that right away to any individual or government. Both Jewish and Christian religious scholars (e.g., Rashi, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther) view self-defense not merely as a right, but as an affirmative duty. To refrain from defending one's life or the life of another innocent is to despise and disrespect the most important gift one has received, the gift of life itself.
But as a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I'm supposed to believe that "The Great and General Court", despite its indisputable record of corruption and criminality (as exemplified by the last three Speakers of the House) is a better arbiter of right and wrong than these amateurs.
Ken