[Oni]

The second amendment, does not, in fact, define a right to keep and bear arms. It defines a right to a well-regulated militia, which may keep and bear arms.

Supreme court ruled that way back in 1876, a time-period in which I doubt there were many people that DIDN'T own guns.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says the people, which meant any men that were capable of wielding arms. I'd agree with your argument, but that was a single ruling among many others. I'd like to use a more modern example, since you seem to argue that people in our modern world don't need guns.

On 26 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to own and use guns for lawful purposes, including self-defense. As part of this decision, the Court struck down parts of a Washington, D.C. gun law that banned all handguns from the city and required that all other guns kept in homes must be unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked.

Source: Schmoop