What's the point of having a set of unalienable rights if they're alienable? Perhaps the context was a bit different three hundred years ago, but the essence is the same: people should have the right to protect themselves and others by whatever means necessary. Almost all legally carrying gun owners are very responsible and would only use their weapon in defense of human (or potentially animal, depending on context) life.
My dad is licensed to carry, and does. He is 71 years old and I don't think he has ever needed to draw his weapon in defense, but the option is there should he need it. He also carries pepper spray because almost all gun owners understand the concept of "necessary force." Most situations, you could defend yourself from with a can of pepper spray. However, there are some situations where, unfortunately, the best solution involves the use of a firearm on a human being. This is sad, but it is nevertheless true. Taking guns away from responsible gun owners would leave us helpless to stop a situation where someone has the intent to kill.
I am regularly upset that people continue to use the line "guns are only used to kill, therefore they are bad." This is largely untrue and very misleading in the case where it is accurate. It is misleading because firearms are almost universally used in the defense of human life (and no, not just against others carrying firearms; there are other weapons that can cause death on a large scale). It is untrue because sometimes the mere presence of a firearm is enough to subdue a criminal or defuse a potentially lethal situation. Additionally, even if this wasn't the case, most gun owners are taught to use only necessary force (as I mentioned earlier): we're not going to shoot to kill unless the situation requires it. Most situations requiring a firearm can be resolved without lethal force and often are.
The media doesn't help matters. Reports about gun misuse (a small fraction of a small fraction of gun owners, many of whom are not carrying legally) often receive front page coverage, even if these reports are blatantly untrue or highly misleading. Retractions are often overlooked or delegated to some forgotten part of a later broadcast or issue. And situations where lethal situations are defused by responsible gun owners are almost never covered by any media (and they do happen, possibly as often or more than the reverse; many 2nd amendment rights groups and sites have coverage of these situations).
So no, I think the constitutional rights granted to us in the second amendment are both necessary and sufficient for the purposes of protection, which was, in fact, the original purpose of the second amendment (though the protection was against a different group of people). And I think if you are going to make a list of rules that can't be violated, you should not be able to violate those rules later on because "times have changed." I support almost all of the rest of the bill of rights; I question the unlimited freedom of the press granted in the first amendment (especially in the case of ongoing criminal proceedings) and think that perhaps the seventh amendment should have accounted for inflation. That said, though I disagree with these rights, I do not think it is right to grant them, to say they are inviolable, and then to revoke them at some later time.