Truly, those who say it cannot be done simply think of the immediate "here and now". They don't look to what effect a long standing policy such as yours would have 30,50,100 years down the road.
It can be done, but should it be?
Should it be is a complex question. given that the 2nd states folks have a right to bear arms the obvious answer would be no.
For me to a degree it comes down to intent, was the 2nd put in place to ensure that the citizens could stand against its own government? If we are to believe Mason then it was. "A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State
In that context id say the 2nd has failed, because like it or not the armed population of the united states would be in no position to stand against the US military if it were to come to that. Because the reality is it would never be every gun owner vs. the government. The right to bear arms is nothing more than a security blanket for paranoid types in that respect.
Then we have the right to defend our lives and property, that was not cited as a reason for the 2nd, although it has validity.
People like to hunt for food - not the intent of the 2nd but valid.
By the very advances in technology over the last 200 years the 2nd seems somewhat irrelevant in the context in which it was created. Which leads me to conclude the right to bear arms needs to be weighed against the other societal benefits/costs.