NO... Ya don't.

The reasoning for the protections, is offered as a reminder to future generations of the obligations inherent from the RIGHT.

For instance... let's try this:

"Being necessary to the entertainment of the people, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed"

Now today very few people read books for entertainment. So would you argue that this should be used as reasoning for stripping us of our right to keep and read books?

Sure... you can argue that some people still read for entertainment, but they are such a stark minority that the protection is no longer relevant. You may also argue that books are used for other purposes, such as education and keeping of records… but when you do so you argue the right, not the reasoning established in example for the protection represented in the amendment.

The same is true in the 2nd amendment; the right to keep and bear arms is essential in the individual’s means to protect themselves; thus the collective: ‘The People” are protected through that immutable principle.