It’s not as simple as that. The “well-regulated militia” clause in the 2nd amendment has been analyzed to death over the last few hundred years, and like debates over religion, it has entrenched, diametrically opposed people on both sides. The original purposes of many aspects of the Constitution can be found in the Federalist Papers–they’re an interesting read for history buffs and anyone interested in governments.
One argument that I found interesting rewords the amendment like this: “A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books shall not be infringed.” I don’t think anyone would argue, based on this, that only college-educated voters should be allowed to own and read books.
Mind, I’m not a “gun person”, but I do try to understand the motives and reasons the founders of this country used to put these laws in place. I think the only other part of the Bill of Rights subject to as much debate and discussion as the 2nd amendment is the Establishment Clause in the 1st amendment…
Even the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on this subject and they concluded the 2nd amendment defines an individual right. That opinion, too, is worth a read.
I don’t believe there’s enough support in this country at this time to muster the necessary votes to push a constitutional amendment through to repeal or modify the 2nd amendment. Even if there were, and something was passed, any move to confiscate guns would probably result in a bloodbath as the hardcore gun owners resisted. The saying “you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands” is probably a fairly accurate description of the difficulty the government would face.