Again, not sure what your point is. Madison is even more clear in the first draft.
That probably has to do with the fact that the Federal Government didn't really start encroaching on your average law-abiding citizens 2A right until the Gun Control Act of 1968. Before that there was NO question as to whether an individual had a right to own a firearm.
The guy you linked (Caplan) wrote "Restoring the Balance: The Second Amendment Revisited" where he clearly states:
"Underlying this amendment are the twin goals of individual and collective defense from violence and aggression, goals which have been recognized by Congress. This Article will demonstrate that current efforts to limit firearms possession to the organized militia undermine the goals and that the theories behind such efforts do not stand the test of constitutional history."
He (Caplan) agrees with me. So, again, I have no idea what you were trying to prove. Thanks for the additional ammo, though.
The D.C. gun ban is the first time in U.S. history that a government attempts to remove an individual right to firearm ownership and the SCOTUS correct this with the Heller decision.
DC V. Heller was necessary because politicians do whatever they want regardless of how painfully obvious something is. If you disagree, ask Bill Clinton what the definition of "is" is.
I mean, why was the 14th amendment necessary when these words are just as painfully obvious:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."