TD - Would you disagree that in a general sense, other rights were originally predicated on virtually the same fear? --Including but not limited to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to peaceable assembly, right to privacy, right to due process, protection from illegal search and seizure, etc., etc., etc.?
In the general sense, I would not disagree with your assertions. Within the context of 18th century early America, a fragile new democratic government and both internal and external threats to the country's existence, the USA likely required a constitutional amendment as such. Much existential fear existed during that era.
Having said that, the government we are discussing was intended to be a government "by the people, for the people". Of course, that sounds a bit naive in modern context, however it is not naive on the basis of the government somehow being tyrannical. Many other issues that are quite complex, but mostly related to the plutocracy in the country have largely corrupted our government, (think Citizen's United). That plutocracy to this very day is quite adept at creating straw men, such as "look at the big bad federal government and how they want to take away all of your rights". Those assertions do not hold up under scrutiny.
The fact that most of the western, and a good part of the eastern world is largely democratic today, without the same level of constitutional protection of gun rights, (granted this is only a correlation), strongly provides at least anecdotal evidence that such an amendment is likely not necessary in modern society.
One really needs to believe that America is somehow exceptional to believe otherwise.
d4g