I'm pretty sure they didn't envision the internet when they created the 1st Amendment, but yet here you are, blindly offering an uninformed opinion to the whole damned world.
And besides, why would civilians even need a silencer for guns, anyways? Last I checked, silencers would be needed in order to avoid detection if you shoot a gun, such as during black ops or assassinations, and I really don’t see the need for a silencer when, say, trying to ward off burglars inside your house (if anything, keeping it unsilenced would ward the burglars off just from shooting.). Now, if they’re trying to ward off someone actively trying to kill you, that might be a good reason to have a silencer.
We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. But since you asked the question, framed exactly the same way as anti-gunners and FUDDS incrementally seek to eliminate all gun rights (see also: "why does anyone NEED an 'assault weapon'" (sic)) Suppressors are useful for not losing one's hearing while shooting (or preserving the remaining hearing of those of us who lost too much of it in the service of our country), for being able to provide instruction on the range, to minimize noise complaints that make it hard to site shooting facilities, and to hunt herd animals like wild hogs who will bolt at the first report of an un-suppressed firearm.
Your idea of suppressors as a tool for "black ops or assassinations" is clearly based on movie BS, not reality. They're not what you see in the movies, and you owe it to yourself and those of us who actually care about the 2d Amendment to become informed about such topics before you blindly opine on that which you clearly don't understand.
Try video games, and quite frankly, I’m supporting civilian usage of suppressors now, especially after I was educated on the subject by others.