I know, I know, there is something amazingly special about the United States that means that what worked in every other country in the world won't work here.
I've said many times before that we don't need to repeal the 2A, all we need is to reinterpret it to it's original concept and make 'well regulated militia' an important requirement again.
Yes there is. We have far larger number of gun in existence, we have the right to gun ownership guaranteed by our constitution and we were founded on the ideals that this is a free, democratic country. For better or worse, that is who we are as a country and culture.
The well regulated militia was intended to be a STATE militia to protect against overreach by the federal government. So each state gets to decide it's own gun laws so they can have a group of armed individuals ready to serve if they deem it necessary to call them up. It was never a requirement that those armed individuals serve, just that there should be no federal prohibition to their right to be armed. Pretty much what we have now.
If you are going to fall back on the "original" intent of the 2A then at least be honest.
EDIT: but I do agree that the intent of all laws is what really matters. Not the letter or specific details often used to try and subvert the overall intent. The 2A was written to protect the states from the fed and to protect the individual from government. Arguing that it only extends to muskets or doesn't cover "assault weapons" is trying to subvert it's overall purpose.
Telling citizens: "Here's a single-shot shotgun that cost $25k in fees and licencing to use once per year to hunt pheasants with. You have to keep it locked in a secure gun club facility, can check it out with exactly two shells for it, but we haven't banned guns. There's your 2A rights for you. Happy?" <--- doesn't really cut it.