This is probably the biggest cultural difference between the US and the UK. I, and many other Brits, just can’t understand this opinion.
It was written in a time when America was a frontier state, practically lawless in some areas, and the fear of both a dictatorial government and the possibility of bandits razing entire villages to the ground was very real. Meanwhile, the most common guns around were muskets, which were ridiculously inaccurate and needed reloading after every shot; not great for a school shooting, as modern assault weapons are. It is anachronistic and needs to be changed. There is no reason why people with criminal records, mental illnesses or reasonable suspicion of being terrorists should be able to freely keep and bear arms. Perhaps another Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech will tell persuade more people of this.
I’d be in favour of trying to introduce a new amendment which alters the Second Amendment, although gun control itself is not inherently unconstitutional. The SC ruled in 2008 that “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose […] The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”