Before we can talk about whether or not the 2nd Amendment should be able to stay within the Bill of Rights, we must first know, and, if possible, decipher what the meaning of it is.
To quote, The 2nd Amendment contains 2 parts to it.
1) A well, regulated militia, being necessary for a free state.
2) The rights of the people to keep and bear arms, [which] shall not be infringed. [Emphasis added.]
In today's world, both clauses of the statement are needed. Let us break each one down.
"A well, regulated militia..." - The beginning of the 2nd Amendment starts with the Constitution allowing the US to create and maintain an army, in which it shall be well-trained & equipped, but also controlled & used properly and orderly. The Comparison of today's standards is not only the state militia, but also the branches of national military. These branches must not only be maintained & in functioning order, but also must have adequate leadership, provisions, and of course, weaponry and men. Take in mind that all of these are needed to protect the United States specifically from outside forces, and to strive to protect United States Citizens (& later the umbrella of extension includes allies, colonies, territories.).
"... being necessary for a free state." - Without the well, regulated militia, you cannot have a free state. "Necessary", implies that without the given, the desired outcome cannot be obtained. As of this statement, without the militia, a state cannot be free.
This is essentially allowing each state to create their own militias for protection, and to be called upon when needed for war.
The second part of the Second Amendment is what is the most important, and is the most widely debated part of all, the Right to bear Arms.
"The rights of the people to keep and bear arms.." - This is stating that the People (citizens) of the United States, is allowed to buy, own, and even use a firearm if they want, or feel the need to.
"...shall not be infringed." - By definition, infringed means "to actively break the terms of the law...". Including the clause means that US citizens cannot have their 2nd Amendment right taken from them, regardless of the time.
In this case, the prompt states that "Should the Second Amendment stay in the Bill of Rights?". Before we can argue about this question, we must first argue about the nature in which this argument has come from. The Bill of Rights was created in 1791, a few years after the U.S. independence from Great Britain, in which case the U.S. was able to become a nation with not only the victory over U.K., but also through the recognition of existing states. The need for the 2nd Amendment grew rapidly following strained relations with not only Great Britain following the War (in which the U.K. continue to try to apply control over the independent colonies), but also from France, their Revolutionary allies, (who was going through a series of war & turmoil, or the French Revolution). Blockade & Impressment by Great Britain led to another war (War of 1812) with Great Britain, which is usually called the Second War for Independence. During this time, relations with France also strained over the XYZ affair. During this time, the 2nd Amendment grew to be extremely important, not only to keep a standing army against European influence, but also against the Native Americans, in which the Americans clashed with constantly as they slowly expanded westward. The musket (& later rifle), played an important role in American settler's journey to the west, and would allow them to not only hunt but also to protect their families.
The 2nd Amendment of today is under fire by mostly the left wing, who see no need of firearms in today's culture. They believe that the government is enough to protect the rights of the citizens, and that firearms do more harm than good. However, they seem to forget the very reason the 2nd Amendment is created. The Right to bear Arms was created specifically to allow Citizens to combat the power of tyranny. In fact, the 2nd Amendment is the front & only defense of all the rights given to the American People. Taking away one single right, would be the opening to losing all rights. In fact, the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court, upheld, and will continue to upheld the right for citizens to bear arms. Examples can be seen in cases such as, Caetano v. Massachusetts, in which all form of fire arms, whether seen as lethal or not in the general public's eyes, are considered to be protected under the 2nd Amendment.
In fact, the rights of the citizens to own and legally use firearms is the only protection we have from the government.
To quote,
“It takes a good guy with a gun, to stop a bad guy with a gun"
― Quentin R. Bufogle.
By Guaranteeing and allowing lawful citizens to be able to protect themselves and their communities, we are making the world safer, if by one gun at a time.
~
