Actually, I'm not versed on Court Tests VQC. It's entirely possible that Heller did re-evaluate that extension and now you don't need to be in a well ordained milita in order to bear arms.

The insurgency would never have a chance even if guns are allowed.

One of the most beautiful things about the constitution is that it was written with the intent, and purpose of being re-evaluated to fit with the times. Hancock, Franklin, and others are all very famous for touting the maleablility of the defenitions within the constitution to fit the times of America under the understanding that things would change in the future. So yes, it could be re-evaluated in light of any other ammendments or changes that need to be efficated due to the needs of the populace.

The argument that citizens need to defend themselves from a corrput government is simply antiquated, remember though, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have guns. I believe it is one of our liberty based rights to responsibly own handguns, rifles, etc. I'm simply arguing that anyone that thinks that way (I need mah guns so I kin kill me some corrupt politicians) is way off base.

There are many more, stronger, more responsible, and flat out better arguments out there.

edit, also I haven't watched any of the youtubes since my last post, I'm at work and have the liberty to post on forums, but not to take up precious bandwith with youtubes.