If a government is made up of moral or at least reasonable people who act in a manner that does not abuse the power given to them, would that government still be amoral in your view?

It makes it less likely, but not impossible. The American Revolution took place in an era where England was ruled by an aristocracy that was highly educated, highly competent, and highly moral by our incredibly degenerate standards.

And yet, rifles were necessary anyway.

The government, as a structure, is purely amoral. As is any "corporate citizen". There is no ethical corporation, and there is no ethical state. An ethical corporation is a lie, normally as a mechanism to seize power to protect itself with moral shaming; and an ethical state is the Fascist's own definition of a Fascist State. The structure, in and of itself, is not moral if only the people who comprise it make it so.

Morality, in a social context, can only come from the people itself. No institution is capable of morality

This is what the 2nd Amendment intends to resolve: a balance of terror is necessary between the people and the state. The state, as a weapon, can't be trusted to be moral forever, because an immoral actor will inevitably slip through the best defenses. If the balance of terror is lost, then he creates a monopoly of violence, and tyranny will always be the inevitable end.

who would watch the watchmen and decide when they are overstepping their bounds? The people? A governing body or board? The watchmen themselves or a council comprised of them?

The same you would get anywhere: Independent and conflicting power structures create a balance of terror that requires good and moral behavior from individuals.

The more power may be concentrated in a position, the more sensitive the strand holding the sword of Damocles above his head must be. We typically institutionalize this sword in the form of law (meaning that government doesn't make law and regulate people... the people make law and regulate government). But your question is more base than that: who specifically?

It depends on the scale. A king must be regulated with different structures than a mere soldier on post.

But if we are to analyze it, we must construct a balance of terror between two parties, without regard to law:

• The watchmen in question
• Each in the duty of his care

The watchmen must be accountable to those in his care by being prepared to treat his life at least as important as even one of those in his duty of care. If he loses two people, he has lost two of his own lives. He must defend each with as much vigor and tenacity as can be summoned given his power. While he may be confronted with dilemmas that might lose 1 to save 2, his duty should require such caution that he would have avoided the possibility of the dilemma of risking 3 lives at all.

Only in an equal balance of terror between each can an appointed watchmen be trusted with the responsibility afforded to him, and the power of decision that comes with it.

The moment his care is no longer needed, the duty is ended, and he can go back to being someone else. The only person who would be trusted with this care, is someone who would not abuse it.